^'¥^ 


r^ 


4- 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


P        http://archive.org/details/stpetersburgcritOOvand 


NEW  GUIDES  TO  OLD  MASTERS 

By  John  C.  Van  Dyke 

PHICE3 

I.  London — National  Gallery,  Wallace  Collection. 
With  a  General  Introduction  and  Bibliog- 
raphy for  the  Series net  $1.00 

II.     Paris — Louvre net      .75 

III.  Amsterdam — Rijks  Museum  ) 

The  Hague — Royal  Gallery    >  bound  together  .  net      .75 
Haarlem — Hals  Museum       ) 

IV.  Brussels — Royal  Museum     )  k^„„^  ^^„«4.i,««     *,^*       tk 

.   ^  T^       1  Ti/r  abound  together .  net      .75 

Antwerp — Royal  Museum    ) 

V.     Munich — Old  Pinacothek      ") 

Frankfort — S  taedel  Institute  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Cassel — Royal  Gallery  ) 

VI.     Berlin — Kaiser-Friedrich      ") 

Museum  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Dresden — Royal  Gallery        ) 

VII.     Vienna — Imperial  Gallery    "^ 

Budapest — Musemn  of  Fine  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Arts  3 

VIII.     St.  Petersburg — Hermitage net      .75 

IX.     Venice-Act^demy  ,.  Uound  together  .  n«t    1.00 

Milan — Brera,  Poldi-Pezzoh  ) 

X.     Florence — Uffizi,  Pitti,  Academy      ,     .     ,     ,   In  Press 

XI.     Rome — ^Vatican,  Borghese  Gallery   ^     ,     ,     ,   In  Press 

XII.    Mfldrid—Prado net      .76 


THE  HERMITAGE 


REMBRANDT:      PORTRAIT    OF    A    MAN 
The  Hermitage,  St.  Petersburg 


NEW      GUIDES      TO      OLD      MASTERS 


ST.  PETERSBURG 


CRITICAL  NOTES  ON  THE  HERMITAGE 


BY 
JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE 

AUTHOB  OF  "art   FOR   AHT's  SAKE,"    "  THE   MEANING   OF  PICTURES,' 

"history   OF   PAINTING,"    "OLD   DUTCH   AND 

FLEMISH   MASTERS,"    ETC. 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1914 


Copyright,  1914,  bt 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  September,  1914 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

There  are  numerous  guide-books,  catalogues,  and 
histories  of  the  European  galleries,  but,  unfortunately 
for  the  gallery  visitor,  they  are  either  wholly  descrip- 
tive of  obvious  facts  or  they  are  historical  and  ar- 
chaeological about  matters  somewhat  removed  from  art 
itself.  In  them  the  gist  of  a  picture — its  value  or  mean- 
ing as  art — is  usually  passed  over  in  silence.  It  seems 
that  there  is  some  need  of  a  guide  that  shall  say  less 
about  the  well-worn  saints  and  more  about  the  man 
behind  the  paint-brush;  that  shall  deal  with  pictures 
from  the  painter's  point  of  view,  rather  than  that  of 
the  ecclesiastic,  the  archaeologist,  or  the  literary  ro- 
mancer; that  shall  have  some  sense  of  proportion  in 
the  selection  and  criticism  of  pictures;  that  shall  have 
a  critical  basis  for  discrimination  between  the  good  and 
the  bad;  and  that  shall,  for  these  reasons,  be  of  ser- 
vice to  the  travelling  public  as  well  as  to  the  art  student. 

This  series  of  guide-books  attempts  to  meet  these 
requirements.  They  deal  only  with  the  so-called  "old 
masters.''  When  the  old  masters  came  upon  the 
scene,  flourished,  and  ceased  to  exist  may  be  deter- 
mined by  their  spirit  as  well  as  by  their  dates.  In 
Italy  the  tradition  of  the  craft  had  been  established 
before  Giotto  and  was  carried  on  by  Benozzo,  Botti- 


vi  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

celH,  Raphael,  Titian,  Tintoretto,  even  down  to  Tie- 
polo  in  the  eighteenth  century.  But  the  late  men, 
the  men  of  the  Decadence,  are  not  mentioned  here 
because  of  their  exaggerated  sentiment,  their  inferior 
workmanship — in  short,  the  decay  of  the  tradition  of 
the  craft.  In  France  the  fifteenth-century  primitives 
are  considered,  and  also  the  sixteenth-century  men, 
including  Claude  and  Poussin;  but  the  work  of  the 
Rigauds,  Mignards,  Coypels,  Watteaus,  and  Bouchers 
seems  of  a  distinctly  modern  spirit  and  does  not  be- 
long here.  This  is  equally  true  of  all  English  painting 
from  Hogarth  to  the  present  time.  In  Spain  we  stop 
with  the  School  of  Velasquez,  in  Germany  and  the 
Low  Countries  with  the  seventeenth-century  men. 
The  modern  painters,  down  to  the  present  day,  so  far 
as  they  are  found  in  the  public  galleries  of  Europe, 
will  perhaps  form  a  separate  guide-book,  which  by  its 
very  limitation  to  modern  painting  can  be  better 
treated  by  itself. 

Only  the  best  pictures  among  the  old  masters  are 
chosen  for  comment.  This  does  not  mean,  however, 
that  only  the  great  masterpieces  have  been  considered. 
There  are,  for  instance,  notes  upon  some  three  hun- 
dred pictures  in  the  Venice  Academy,  upon  five  hun- 
dred in  the  Ufiizi  Gallery,  and  some  six  hundred  in 
the  Louvre  or  the  National  Gallery,  London.  Other 
galleries  are  treated  in  the  same  proportion.  But  it 
has  not  been  thought  worth  while  to  delve  deeply  into 
the  paternity  of  pictures  by  third-rate  primitives  or 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  vii 

to  give  space  to  mediocre  or  ruined  examples  by  even 
celebrated  painters.  The  merits  that  now  exist  in  a 
canvas,  and  can  be  seen  by  any  intelHgent  observer, 
are  the  features  insisted  upon  herein. 

In  giving  the  relative  rank  of  pictures,  a  system  of 
starring  has  been  followed. 

Mention  without  a  star  indicates  a  picture  of  merit, 
otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  selected  from  the 
given  collection  at  all. 

One  star  (*)  means  a  picture  of  more  than  average 
importance,  whether  it  be  by  a  great  or  by  a  medi- 
ocre painter. 

Two  stars  (**)  indicates  a  work  of  high  rank  as  art, 
quite  regardless  of  its  painter's  name,  and  may  be  given 
to  a  picture  attributed  to  a  school  or  by  a  painter  un- 
known. 

Three  stars  (***)  signifies  a  great  masterpiece. 

The  length  of  each  note  and  its  general  tenor  will  in 
most  cases  suggest  the  relative  importance  of  the  picture. 

Catalogues  of  the  galleries  should  be  used  in  con- 
nection with  these  guide-books,  for  they  contain  much 
information  not  repeated  here.  The  gallery  catalogues 
are  usually  arranged  alphabetically  under  the  painters' 
names,  although  there  are  some  of  them  that  make 
reference  by  school,  or  room,  or  number,  according  to 
the  hanging  of  the  pictures  in  the  gallery.  But  the 
place  where  the  picture  may  be  hung  is  constantly 
shifting;  Its  number,  too,  may  be  subject  to  alteration 
with  each  new  edition  of  the  catalogue;  but  its  painter's 


vlli  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

name  is  perhaps  less  liable  to  change.  An  arrangement, 
therefore,  by  the  painters'  names  placed  alphabetically 
has  been  necessarily  adopted  in  these  guide-books. 
Usually  the  prefixes  "de,"  '^di/'  "van/'  and  "von'' 
have  been  disregarded  in  the  arrangement  of  the  names. 
And  usually,  also,  the  more  familiar  name  of  the  artist 
is  used — that  is,  Botticelli,  not  Filipepi;  Correggio,  not 
AUegri;  Tintoretto,  not  Robusti.  In  practical  use  the 
student  can  ascertain  from  the  picture-frame  the  name 
of  the  painter  and  turn  to  it  alphabetically  in  this  guide- 
book. In  case  the  name  has  been  recently  changed, 
he  can  take  the  number  from  the  frame  and,  by  turning 
to  the  numerical  index  at  the  end  of  each  volume,  can 
ascertain  the  former  name  and  thus  the  alphabetical 
place  of  the  note  about  that  particular  picture. 

The  picture  appears  under  the  name  or  attribution 
given  in  the  catalogue.  If  there  is  no  catalogue,  then 
the  name  on  the  frame  is  taken.  But  that  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  the  name  or  attribution  is 
accepted  in  the  notes.  Differences  of  view  are  given 
very  frequently.  It  is  important  that  we  should  know 
the  painter  of  the  picture  before  us.  The  question  of 
attribution  is  very  much  in  the  air  to-day,  and  consider- 
able space  is  devoted  to  it  not  only  in  the  General  In- 
troduction but  in  the  notes  themselves.  Occasionally, 
however,  the  whole  question  of  authorship  is  passed 
over  in  favour  of  the  beauty  of  the  picture  itself.  It 
is  always  the  art  of  the  picture  we  are  seeking,  more 
than  its  name,  or  pedigree,  or  commercial  value. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  ix 

Conciseness  herein  has  been  a  necessity.  These 
notes  are  suggestions  for  study  or  thought  rather  than 
complete  statements  about  the  pictures.  Even  the 
matter  of  an  attribution  is  often  dismissed  in  a  sentence 
though  it  may  have  been  thought  over  for  weeks. 
If  the  student  would  go  to  the  bottom  of  things  he 
must  read  further  and  do  some  investigating  on  his 
own  account.  The  Hves  of  the  painters,  the  history  of 
the  schools,  the  opinions  of  the  connoisseurs  may  be 
read  elsewhere.  A  bibliography,  in  the  London  vol- 
ume, will  suggest  the  best  among  the  available  books 
in  both  history  and  criticism. 

The  proper  test  of  a  guide-book  is  its  use.  These 
notes  were  written  in  the  galleries  and  before  the  pic- 
tures. I  have  not  trusted  my  memory  about  them,  nor 
shall  I  trust  the  memory  of  that  man  who,  from  his 
easy  chair,  declares  he  knows  the  pictures  by  heart. 
The  opinions  and  conclusions  herein  have  not  been 
lightly  arrived  at.  Indeed,  they  are  the  result  of  more 
than  thirty  years'  study  of  the  European  galleries. 
That  they  are  often  diametrically  opposed  to  current 
views  and  beliefs  should  not  be  cause  for  dismissing 
them  from  consideration.  Examine  the  pictures,  guide- 
book in  hand.  That  is  the  test  to  which  I  submit  and 
which  I  exact. 

Yet  with  this  insistence  made,  one  must  still  feel 
apologetic  or  at  least  sceptical  about  results.  However 
accurate  one  would  be  as  to  fact,  it  is  obviously  impos- 
sible to  handle  so  many  titles,  names,  and  numbers 


X  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

without  an  occasional  failure  of  the  eye  or  a  slip  of  the 
pen;  and  however  frankly  fair  In  criticism  one  may 
fancy  himself,  it  is  again  impossible  to  formulate  judg- 
ments on,  say,  ten  thousand  pictures  without  here  and 
there  committing  blunders.  These  difBculties  may  be 
obviated  in  future  editions.  If  opinions  herein  are 
found  to  be  wrong,  they  will  be  edited  out  of  the  work 
just  as  quickly  as  errors  of  fact.  The  reach  is  toward 
a  reliable  guide  though  the  grasp  may  fall  short  of  full 
attainment. 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  George  B.  McClellan  for  helpful  suggestions  re- 
garding this  series,  and  to  Mr.  Sydney  Philip  Noe  not 
only  for  good  counsel  but  for  practical  assistance  in 
copying  manuscript  and  reading  proof. 

John  C.  Van  Dyke. 
Rutgers  College,  1914. 


THE  HERMITAGE 


NOTE  ON  THE  HERMITAGE 

The  picture  gallery  of  the  Hermitage  was  started 
with  the  haphazard  collection  of  Peter  the  Great, 
but  its  real  founder  was  the  energetic  Catherine  II. 
That  Empress  not  only  built  the  building  but  began 
the  acquisition  of  pictures  on  a  large  scale.  In  1763 
she  acquired  the  Gotzkowsky  Collection  with  its  Rem- 
brandts,  in  1769  the  Bruhl  Collection  with  its  Rubenses, 
in  1772  the  Crozat  Collection  with  its  Italian  and  Dutch 
pictures,  in  1779  the  Walpole  collection  with  its  many 
Van  Dycks  from  Houghton  Hall,  England.  The  ini- 
tiative of  the  Empress  was  followed  up  by  Alexan- 
der I,  who,  in  1814,  added  thirty-eight  pictures  from 
the  possessions  of  the  Empress  Josephine,  and  by 
Nicholas  I,  who  acquired  two  large  groups  of  pic- 
tures from  the  collections  of  the  Countess  of  St.  Leu 
and  Manuel  Godoy.  The  last  extensive  addition  was 
made  in  1886  by  Alexander  III,  who  purchased  the 
Musee  Galitzlne  and  added  one  hundred  and  eighty- 
two  pictures  to  the  gallery.  These  accumulations  bulk 
large  to-day  and  give  the  Hermitage  an  imposing  and 
impressive  appearance.  There  are  over  two  thousand 
pictures,  of  almost  every  name  and  nature,  for  the 
visitor  to  study.  The  museum  is  perhaps  the  most 
interesting  place  in  St.  Petersburg. 

3 


4  NOTE  ON  THE  HERMITAGE 

Yet  in  spite  of  its  history  and  its  many  pictures  the 
Hermitage  is  something  of  a  disappointment.  Distance, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Prado,  has  always  lent  some  en- 
chantment to  it.  It  has  been  much  talked  about  as  the 
most  wonderful  of  all  the  galleries  and  one  naturally 
has  great  expectations.  Perhaps  the  first  shock  of  dis- 
enchantment comes  with  the  portico  of  the  building. 
If  those  huge,  bizarre  figures  holding  up  the  porch  are 
a  sample,  what  may  be  expected  farther  on?  But 
the  first  plunge  is  the  worst.  There  are  disappoint- 
ments ahead  but  there  are  also  agreeable  surprises. 
The  forty-three  pictures  put  down  to  Rembrandt,  for 
instance,  are  disappointing  in  that  hardly  more  than 
half  a  dozen  are  by  Rembrandt;  but  they  are  agreeably 
surprising  in  that  a  good  many  of  the  forty-three  are 
excellent  pictures.  Most  of  them  were  painted  by 
Rembrandt's  pupils  or  came  out  of  his  shop,  which 
does  not  mean  that  they  are  third-rate  pictures  by 
any  means.  Some  of  them  are  good  enough  for  the 
master  but  they  are  not  his  individual  work.  Of  the 
genuine  Rembrandts  there  is  one  supreme  example — 
the  so-called  Sobieski  portrait.  Rembrandt  never  went 
beyond  it.  Aside  from  the  great  leader  and  his  pu- 
pils, the  Dutch  School  is  fairly  well  represented  here 
in  the  Hermitage.  There  are  excellent  examples  of 
Terborch,  Steen,  Ostade,  Dou,  Wouwerman,  Ruisdael, 
Van  der  Heist,  Pieter  de  Hooch,  Potter,  Frans  Hals. 
Very  interesting  is  a  large  picture  ascribed  to  Frans 
Hals  the  Younger,  suggesting  as  it  does  that  the  sons 


NOTE  ON  THE  HERMITAGE  5 

of  Hals  could  do  work  good  enough  in  its  way  to  pass 
muster  for  that  of  the  father. 

The  early  Flemings  and  Dutch  are  not  to  be  seen  in 
numbers  or  in  quality,  though  there  are  pictures  put 
down  to  Jan  van  Eyck,  Roger  van  der  Weyden,  and 
others,  and  a  remarkable  work  by  Lucas  van  Leyden. 
The  later  Flemings  are,  however,  well  shown,  especially 
Rubens  and  Van  Dyck.  Nothing  could  be  finer  than 
some  of  the  portraits  by  Rubens,  notably  that  of  the 
Lady  in  Waiting  (No.  579);  or  by  Van  Dyck,  that 
of  Suzanne  Fourment  and  Her  Daughter  (No.  635). 
Jordaens,  too,  has  one  very  good  portrait  here,  and 
there  are  several  excellent  pictures  by  Teniers  the 
Younger.  There  is  disappointment  again  in  not  find- 
ing the  German  School  well  represented — in  fact,  with 
the  exception  of  Cranach,  it  is  not  represented  at  all — 
but  there  is  agreeable  surprise  in  the  excellent  French 
pictures  by  Poussin  and  Claude.  There  are  nearly 
twenty  examples  of  each  painter.  There  are  also 
beautiful  pictures  by  Watteau,  Lancret,  Pater,  Boucher, 
Fragonard,  Chardin.  The  French  section  is  excellent 
and  should  be  looked  at  closely. 

The  Italian  pictures  are  perhaps  the  most  interest- 
ing of  all.  There  are  rare  and  odd  examples  here  to 
puzzle  the  expert.  Botticelli  is  named  as  the  painter 
of  one  charming  work;  Perugino,  Francia,  and  Cima 
are  credited  with  other  works.  But  the  chief  represen- 
tation is  among  the  fifteenth-century  painters.  The 
lovely  panel  put  down  to  Giorgione,   the  doubtful 


6  NOTE  ON  THE  HERMITAGE 

Leonardo,  the  Columbine  picture  by  Melzi,  the 
Raphaels,  are  all  very  attractive.  The  Giorgione  is 
alone  worth  a  trip  to  St.  Petersburg  for,  notwithstand- 
ing the  insistent  doubt  of  its  being  by  that  painter,  it 
is  a  masterpiece.  The  Venetians  are,  of  course,  shown 
in  numbers.  There  are  several  Titians,  Tintorettos, 
Bonifazios,  and  Veroneses,  with  two  excellent  Sebas- 
tiano  del  Piombos,  one  remarkably  fine  Tiepolo,  and 
a  score  or  more  of  canvases  by  painters  in  the  school 
of  name  unknown.  The  Spanish  School  is  here  almost 
reduced  to  Murillo  and  Velasquez,  with  good  pictures 
by  both  painters — especially  the  Velasquez  study  head 
of  Innocent  X — but  one  misses  many  of  the  early  men 
of  the  school. 

The  building  in  which  the  pictures  are  shown  is  a 
large,  rambling,  palace-like  receptacle  decorated  in  a 
rather  florid  style  but  well  enough  lighted.  The  first 
floor,  where  there  are  priceless  treasures  (notably  in 
Greek  marbles  and  gold  work),  is  not  so  well  off  for 
light  as  the  second  floor,  where  one  finds  the  gallery 
of  pictures.  The  hanging  of  the  pictures  sometimes 
provokes  adverse  comment  but,  generally  speaking,  it 
is  very  satisfactory.  The  main  worry  of  the  student 
or  visitor  does  not  come  after  he  is  in  the  gallery  but 
before  he  enters.  The  anxiety  is  oftener  about  how 
to  get  into  the  building  at  all.  There  are  regularly 
scheduled  hours  for  opening  and  closing  the  Hermi- 
tage, but  there  are  many  exceptions  to  them.  Every 
feast-day  or  saint's  day  or  imperial-family  birthday  finds 


NOTE  ON  THE  HERMITAGE  7 

the  doors  closed.  Then  there  are  sporadic  closings  for 
repairs  or  for  no  given  reason.  There  are  always  atten- 
dants in  the  building  and  frequently  on  application  one 
can  have  a  special  attendant  assigned  on  payment  of 
a  small  fee. 

Catalogues  in  Russian  and  French  were  issued  some 
years  ago  but  they  are  now  (1913)  out  of  print,  and 
the  only  catalogue  obtainable  is  the  French  edition 
of  the  Italian  and  Spanish  Schools.  This  catalogue 
has  critical  notes  of  some  value  and  should  be  used. 
The  pictures  have  labels  upon  them  giving  numbers, 
names,  and  titles  in  Russian  and  French.  There  is  a 
Hanfstaengl  volume  containing  reproductions  of  the 
pictures  for  sale  at  the  entrance. 


THE  HERMITAGE 

127.    Allori,   Alessandro.     Portrait  of  a   Young  Man. 

The  portrait  seems  very  smooth,  with  over-elabo- 
rate roundness  of  contours  in  face  and  hands.  The 
type  is  feminine,  as  the  catalogue  note  suggests. 
The  dress  is  now  dark  and  melts  into  the  back- 
ground.    Apparently  in  good  condition. 

Allori,  Angelo.     See  Bronzino. 

478  1  Amberger,  Christopher.     Portraits  of  Man  and 

479/  Wife.  The  man's  portrait  is  much  the  better  of 
the  two.  It  is  well  done  in  the  head  if  a  little  flat 
in  the  body. 

1674.  Angelico,  Fra,  Madonna  with  St.  Dominick 
and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  The  figures  of  the  saints 
seem  more  positively  characteristic  of  the  painter 
than  the  Madonna.  Fra  Angelico's  peculiarly  fine 
feeling,  his  depth  of  sentiment  do  not  appear  to 
advantage  in  pictures  of  this  size,  but  notice,  if  you 
please,  the  fine,  pearly  quality  of  colour.  The  pic- 
ture is  a  fresco  that  has  been  transferred  and  in- 
jured somewhat  in  the  process. 

1963.  A  Tabernacle.  It  is  merely  a  frame  or  set- 
ting of  gilt  with  angels  painted  on  the  gilt.  It  is 
possibly  shop  or  pupils'  work  but  is  very  lovely, 
nevertheless.  What  a  very  handsome  piece  of  gild- 
ing! 

598.  Backer,  Jacob  A.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  This  gives 
but  a  slight  hint  of  Backer's  ability.     He  was  a 


10  THE  HERMITAGE 

portrait-painter  of  force  and  power  second  only  to 
Rembrandt  in  his  day  and  generation.  No.  599 
is  of  the  same  quality  or  its  lack. 

2.    Baldovinetti,   Alesso.     Madonna  and  Child.      It 

is  a  good,  decorative  piece,  and  the  gallery  direc- 
tion has  been  wise  enough  not  to  put  it  in  a  square 
frame,  as  would  have  been  done  in  many  an  Ital- 
ian gallery.  It  was  formerly  considered  a  Masaccio 
and  later  on  a  Cosimo  Rosselli.  As  a  Baldovinetti 
it  is  hardly  satisfactory.  It  is  possibly  by  some 
follower  of  Fra  Angelico.  It  has  not  enough  char- 
acter, not  enough  individuality,  for  Baldovinetti. 

403.  Becerra,  Caspar.  A  Sibyl.  The  picture  is  rather 
hard  in  its  drawing  but  is  good  in  colour.  Per- 
haps Dosso  Dossi  as  its  possible  painter  would 
be  nearer  the  mark  than  Becerra.  Numbered  in 
the  catalogue  303  (?)  but  on  the  frame  403. 

320.    Belotto    Bernardo.     Rialto   Bridge,    Venice.     It 

is  a  very  good  Belotto,  but  compares  indifferently 
well  with  the  fine  Belottos  in  the  Imperial  Gallery, 
Vienna. 

6.   Bissolo,  Pier  Francesco.     Madonna  and  Child. 

It  was  formerly  regarded  as  a  picture  of  the  Bel- 
lini School.  It  should  have  been  kept  under  that 
caption.  The  work  is  not  remarkable  in  any  way 
and  is  now  badly  repainted. 

854.    Bol,     Ferdinand.       Portrait    of    a     Woman.       A 

smooth  performance  and  decidedly  weak.  No- 
tice for  likeness  the  lighting  of  the  hands — their 
clarity,  their  ivory  quality — in  connection  with  the 
angel  hands  in  the  so-called  Rembrandt,  No.  791, 
or  the  Danae  hands  in  No.  802. 


BOL,  FERDINAND  11 

834.   A  Warrior.    There  is  no  indication  of  Bol  in 

this  work.  Nor  is  No.  856  by  Bol.  It  has  upon  it 
the  bogus  signature  of  Rembrandt. 

850.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     In   BoFs   smooth  style. 

The  sitter  is  the  same  young  man  that  he  painted 
several  times,  using  him  as  a  model  for  angels. 
The  same  sitter  appears  in  pictures  attributed  to 
Rembrandt  at  Berlin  and  elsewhere.  See  also  Nos. 
845  and  853. 

851.   Man   and   Woman.      Here  we  have   another 

picture  in  BoFs  smooth,  velvety  manner.  It  was 
no  doubt  popular  in  Bol's  day,  but  it  lacks  in 
strength. 

846.    Two  Figures  in  Landscape.     It  is  weak  work 

that  shows  its  painter  to  no  advantage.  Such  work 
as  this  is  about  all  Bol  is  credited  with  in  these 
days  of  collecting  great  names.  Why  should  a  really 
good  picture  be  given  to  a  Bol  or  a  Flinck  when  it 
is  just  as  easy  to  attach  the  name  of  Rembrandt? 
The  great  masters  keep  absorbing  the  little  ones 
and  perhaps  eventually  art  history  will  be  reduced 
to  a  few  familiar  names. 

848.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     With  a  woman's  portrait 

for  a  companion  piece,  neither  of  them  remarkable 
in  any  way. 

847.   A  Writer.     The  handling  is  pretty  rather  than 

forceful.  Had  the  surface  of  the  picture  been 
rubbed  flat  in  the  cleaning  room  or  grimed  with  dirt 
and  age  until  the  colours  were  darkened  and  ob- 
scured, the  picture  would  have  been  promoted  to 
the  Rembrandt  rank  and  we  should  have  had  ex- 
planations about  Rembrandt's  late  manner  when 
his  hand  failed  him.    But  Fate  has  remorselessly 


12  THE  HERMITAGE 

preserved  it  and  handed  it  down  to  us  as  just  an 
ordinary  Bol. 

90.    Bonifazio  dei   Pitati.     Adoration   of  Shepherds. 

It  is  a  poor  picture  even  for  Bonifazio.  The 
drawing  is  loose  where  the  painting  is  not  thin, 
and  the  landscape  is  crude.  Look  at  the  moun- 
tains, trees,  or  sky  for  this  crudeness.  At  one  time 
the  picture  passed  as  a  Palma. 

92.   Holy  Family.    With  saints  on  either  side  and 

a  rather  fine  display  of  colour.  It  is  decorative, 
handsome,  with  an  interesting  landscape.  It  is 
probably  rightly  placed  as  a  Bonifazio,  though  it 
was  formerly  known  as  a  Palma. 

107.  Bonifazio,  School  of.  Holy  Family.  It  is  fairly 
good  in  colour.  Probably  the  colour  helped  its 
former  sale  as  a  Titian.  It  shows  a  weak  follow- 
ing of  Palma. 

110.  Bordone,  Paris.  Holy  Family.  A  rather  hard 
picture  with  a  bright-red  robe,  marked  in  the  high 
lights.  It  is  Bordone's  work  right  enough  but  does 
not  bring  any  one  to  his  knees. 

111.   Mother  and  Child.    The  child  in  the  picture 

apparently  foreshadows  Van  Dyck's  method  of  com- 
position. It  is  a  rather  coarse  affair.  Look  at  the 
hair,  the  dress,  the  sleeve — the  sleeve  that  reminds 
one  of  Titian.  The  picture  is  some  following  of 
Titian  but  is  hardly  Bordone's.  It  may  be  a  much- 
mauled  copy.    Badly  repainted. 

1846.  Allegorical  Subject.  A  characteristic  Bor- 
done in  his  least  attractive  manner.  The  hair  is 
ropy,  and  the  costume  is  flickery  with  high  lights. 
The  colours  are  variegated  but  hardly  harmonious 
in  their  variety. 


BOTTICELLI,  SCHOOL  OF  13 

3.   Botticelli,  Sandro.   Adoration  of  Magi.   It  IS  an 

*  attractive  picture  in  colour  but  is  not  particularly 
well  drawn,  is  a  little  flat  and  wanting  in  the  third 
dimension,  with  figures  that  sometimes  do  not  de- 
tach from  one  another.  The  sentiment  of  it  is 
more  appealing  than  the  technique,  and  the  air 
of  Botticelli  about  it  is  more  apparent  than  real. 
It  is  not  drawn  as  a  Botticelli  should  be.  The 
catalogue  declares  it  like  the  same  subject  in  the 
UfBzi,  but  the  comparison  with  the  Uffizi  picture 
most  decisively  proves  the  Hermitage  picture  by 
another  hand.  The  bad  drawing  of  the  archi- 
tecture, the  lack  of  articulation  in  the  capitals  of 
the  pilasters,  the  broken  arch  at  left,  the  sharp 
folding  and  the  patterning  of  the  draperies,  the 
jumbled  group  at  the  right  are  not  like  Botticelli 
but  approach  the  painter  of  the  Adoration  in  the 
National  Gallery,  London  (No.  1033),  there  put 
down  to  Botticelli  but  in  reality  nearer  to  Mr. 
Berenson's  Amico  di  Sandro.  This  Hermitage  pic- 
ture is  evidently  a  school  piece  done  with  muffled 
drawing,  hazy  gold  work,  and  some  richness  of  cos- 
tume, but  not  done  effectively,  forcefully,  cleanly, 
clearly,  as  Botticelli  did  his  Uffizi  Adoration.  It 
was  formerly  ascribed  to  Mantegna  but  given  by 
Waagen  to  Botticelli.  A  good  work.  When  a  pic- 
ture is  picked  to  pieces  to  show  that  its  attribution  is 
incorrect  it  does  not  mean  that  the  picture  is  only 
fit  for  the  junk  room.  There  are  plenty  of  good 
pictures  in  European  galleries  under  misleading 
names  or  no  names  at  all. 
N.  N.  Botticelli,  School  of.  Madonna  Adoring  Child. 
The  jaw  line  of  the  Madonna  is  like  a  weak  Bot- 
ticelli, but  the  rest  of  the  drawing  is  too  feeble  for 
any  one  but  a  follower  or  shop  assistant  —  some 


14  THE  HERMITAGE 

Jacopo  del  Sellajo  of  the  time.  The  sentiment  is 
very  good  and  so,  too,  is  the  colour.  Not  in  the 
catalogue  (1913). 

8.  Botticini,  Raffaelo  di  Francesco.  Adoration  of 
the  Child.  It  is  down  to  a  son  and  pupil  of  Bot- 
ticini in  the  catalogue,  but  the  frame  still  says  Lo 
Spagna.  It  belongs  to  neither  of  them  but  is,  per- 
haps, a  weak  following  of  Ghirlandajo.  The  weak- 
ness is  in  the  drawing  as  well  as  in  the  colour.  See 
the  catalogue  note  for  the  various  attributions. 

125.  Bronzino,  Angelo  (AUori).  Portrait  of  Young 
Woman.  An  unusual  Bronzino  not  only  in  the 
drawing  of  the  profile  but  in  the  elaborateness  of 
the  dress  and  the  flowers.  The  head  is  flat  and 
somewhat  soft  in  modelling,  as  are  also  the  hands. 
It  is  a  handsome  picture  for  all  that  it  has  been 
badly  repainted. 

513.   Brueghel   the   Elder,    Jan.     Landscape.     It  is 

only  a  fair  example  of  Velvet  Brueghel.  There  are 
several  other  pictures  by  him  in  this  gallery,  but 
none  of  them  is  remarkable.  No.  518  seems  as 
good  as  any  of  them. 

1693.  Brueghel  the  Younger,  Peter.  Preaching  of 
John  Baptist.  It  looks  like  a  copy.  Notice  the 
manner  in  which  the  foliage  is  done.  It  is  flat  and 
forceless,  as  are  also  the  figures. 

470  1  Bruyn,  Barthel.  Portraits  of  a  Man,  Wife,  and 
471 J  Children.  They  are  rather  commonplace  portraits 
of  which  Bruyn  did  enough  and  to  spare,  notably 
some  of  those  in  the  Cologne  Gallery.  These 
panels  were  originally  pointed  at  the  top  but  have 
now  been  squared  up. 


CARAVAGGIO,  MICHELANGELO  15 

35.  Bugiardini,  Giuliano.  Holy  Family.  This  is 
probably  a  genuine  Bugiardini.  The  trees  and 
landscape  say  as  much  and  the  Madonna  confirms 
them.  It  is  hurt  in  the  shadow  which  has  either 
darkened  or  been  repainted.  Notice  this  in  the 
sleeping  St.  John  where  the  shadow  now  appears 
false  in  value. 

318.  CanalettO,  Antonio.     Reception  of  Count  Gergi, 
*       Venice.    Here  are  fine  sky,  air,  and  distance.    The 

mass  of  figures  on  the  Riva  is  well  given,  the  colour 
is  good,  and  the  shadows  quite  right.  Notice  the 
light  on  the  domes  of  the  Salute  and  the  well- 
drawn  Doge's  Palace.  A  large  and  handsome  pic- 
ture. 

319.    Departure  of  the  Doge.     The  picture  creates 

an  uncomfortable  impression  by  the  repeated  hori- 
zontal lines  in  the  boats  and  buildings.  Moreover, 
the  loading  of  paint  to  produce  relief  in  the  gold 
work  is  not  too  happy.  At  a  distance  you  do  not 
feel  this  so  much  and  the  picture  seems  to  carry 
well.  It  is  hardly  so  satisfactory,  however,  as  its 
companion  piece  (No.  318). 

831.  Cappelle,  Jan  van  de.  River  Scene  with  Boats. 
A  very  beautiful  river  scene  with  flat  water,  sails 
for  spots  of  colour,  and  overhead  a  fine,  warm  sky. 
It  is  a  charming  picture. 
89.  Capriolo,  Domenico.  Portrait  of  the  Artist. 
It  is  possibly  by  the  same  hand  that  did  the  Bravo 
at  the  Vienna  Gallery  (No.  207),  now  attributed  to 
Palma  Vecchio,  only  it  is  much  poorer  in  quality 
than  the  Vienna  picture.  Of  course  it  was  at  one 
time  considered  a  Giorgione. 

217.   Caravaggio,   Michelangelo.     Young  Man  Play- 
ing a  Mandolin.     The  picture  is  done  with  some 


16  THE  HERMITAGE 

spirit,  is  rather  well  drawn  if  hard  in  the  outlines 
and  contours,  and  shows  good  flowers  and  fruit. 

9.    Catena,  Vincenzo.     Madonna,  Child,  and  Saints. 

It  is  an  indifferent  but  probably  genuine  example 
of  Catena  but  not  nearly  so  attractive  as  No.  1655, 
put  down  to  Girolamo  da  Santa  Croce  but  proba- 
bly by  Catena. 

14.  Cesare  da  Sesto.  Holy  Family.  It  seems  a 
genuine  Cesare,  but  is  hardly  an  inspiration  though 
thought  for  many  years  to  be  a  genuine  Leonardo. 
The  drawing  was  almost  always  questionable  with 
Cesare  as  it  was  not  with  Leonardo.  Look  here  at 
the  hands  or  at  the  impossible  proportions  of  the  Ma- 
donna's figure.  Go  on  a  little  further  and  consider 
the  loops  and  lines  in  the  blue  drapery,  the  pinched 
drawing  of  Joseph,  and  the  large  head  of  the  Child. 
It  will  not  bear  analysis  in  its  drawing  and  there  is 
nothing  to  rave  over  in  its  colour. 

4.  Cima,  Giovanni  Battista.  Madonna,  Child, 
and  Saints.  It  is  a  handsome  picture,  in  perfect 
tone,  with  good  atmospheric  effect  and  holding  to- 
gether very  well.  It  should  be  compared  with  No. 
1965,  which  has  less  atmosphere.  Formerly  attrib- 
uted to  Giovanni  Bellini.  Considerably  repainted 
and  softened  thereby. 

1965.   Descent.    A  large  picture,  well  held  together 

except  in  the  hill  and  sky,  which  meet  abruptly. 
It  is  a  little  flat  and  lacking  in  depth.  You  may 
notice  this  even  in  the  cross,  which  wants  in  the 
third  dimension.  The  hands  are  badly  done,  but 
the  colour  scheme  is  rather  good. 

1676.   Annunciation.     This  panel  was  perhaps  orig- 

*       inally  the  centre  of  a  triptych  as   the  catalogue 


CORREGGIO,  ANTONIO  ALLEGRI  17 

surmises.  It  has  been  transferred  from  wood  to 
canvas  and  is  now  badly  mangled,  much  repainted, 
but  still  shows  Cima.  The  interior  is  very  charm- 
ing, with  its  window,  bed,  chair,  and  desk,  while 
the  angel  is  decidedly  attractive.  The  Madonna 
and  the  landscape  are  both  characteristic  of  Cima. 
Notice  the  quality  of  the  lilies. 

1428.  Claude  Lorraine.  Landscape.  Of  the  half-dozen 
or  more  examples  of  Claude  in  this  gallery  this  land- 
scape appears  one  of  the  best.  The  tree,  perhaps, 
cuts  the  picture  in  two,  but  there  is  good  foreground 
and  distance,  with  a  warm  sky,  a  mellow  haze,  and 
a  veil  of  atmosphere.  It  is  rather  imposing.  No. 
1429  is  similar  in  style  but  cooler  or  greyer  in  the 
colour  scheme.  No.  1430  is  too  hot  in  the  sky.  The 
sea  pieces  Nos.  1435  and  1437  seem  cruder,  less 
attractive  work.     No.  1433  is  more  satisfactory. 

469.  Cleve,  Juste  van  (Master  of  Death  of  Virgin). 
Holy  Family.  The  attribution  may  be  right  enough 
but  the  picture  in  itself  is  not  very  good.  Notice 
the  hands,  the  ovals  of  drapery  about  the  wrist, 
and  the  cut-in-two  appearance  of  the  panel  by 
reason  of  its  odd  composition. 

81.  Correggio,  Antonio  AUegri.  Madonna,  Child, 
and  Angel.  There  are  several  versions  of  this  pic- 
ture (notably  one  at  Budapest),  and  one  cannot 
be  too  sure  which  is  the  original.  The  Budapest 
example  is  in  better  condition  than  this  in  the 
Hermitage  and  has  more  verve  about  it.  Cer- 
tainly this  Hermitage  version  is  of  no  great  pith 
or  moment  as  art.  The  Correggio  spirit  is  a  bit 
over-done  and  the  sentiment  of  it  is  mildly  silly. 
The  children  are  rather  nice  but  the  Madonna  is 
almost  as  infantile  and  unintelligent  as  they.     The 


18  THE  HERMITAGE 

group  is  well  put  together  with  a  good  swing  of  line 
in  the  Child,  the  draperies  are  rightly  handled,  and 
the  colour  is  acceptable.  It  has  been  rubbed  and 
repainted  until  the  finger-nails  and  toes  have  van- 
ished. 

82a.    Apollo  and  Marsyas.     It  is  a  very  good  picture 

and  has  some  handsome  figures  in  it;  but  is  it  a 
Correggio?  The  catalogue  argues  its  genuineness 
at  some  length.  Before  the  picture  one  is  not  con- 
vinced; for  the  picture  contradicts  the  argument. 
There  seems  not  the  slightest  trace  of  Correggio 
in  it.  He  never  drew  with  any  such  severity  of 
line,  not  even  in  his  youth.  The  light-and-shade 
is  not  his  any  more  than  the  composition.  The 
colour  is  more  like  him  but  is  perhaps  deceptive. 
The  picture  is  Florentine  in  character.  An  at- 
tribution to  any  definite  painter  would  be  doubtful. 

461.   Cranach  the  Elder,  Lucas.     Venus  and  Cupid. 

There  are  several  versions  of  it  in  the  European 
galleries.  This  one  is  a  varied  version  and  possibly 
a  shop  piece.  It  is  graceful  in  line — perhaps  too 
much  so  for  the  Elder  Cranach. 

460.   Madonna   and   Child.    It  has  probably  been 

cut  away  from  a  larger  picture.  The  Madonna  is 
now  far  to  the  right  on  the  panel.  The  work  is  a 
little  soft  in  the  drawing  and  somewhat  too  formal 
in  the  arrangement  of  the  landscape.  It  has  both 
charm  and  colour  but  is  nevertheless  a  work  of  the 
shop  or  the  school. 

459.    Madonna   and   Child.      If   you   will    compare 

*  this  picture  with  No.  460  you  will  notice  that  there 
is  some  difference  not  only  in  the  quality  of  the 
colour  but  in  the  accuracy  of  the  drawing  and  the 


DOU,  GERARD  19 

firmness  of  the  flesh.  Moreover,  the  foHage  and 
landscape  here  are  better  done  and  more  effective. 
Notice  the  apple-tree  with  its  leaves  and  fruit.  The 
picture  is  a  charming  piece  of  colour,  with  a  very 
decorative  arabesque  about  the  Madonna's  head 
and  a  fine  landscape  at  the  back.  It  is  probably 
by  the  Elder  Cranach. 

462.  Cardinal  Albert  of  Brandenburg.  This  por- 
trait has  every  appearance  of  being  a  poor  school 
piece  or  even  a  copy.  Notice  the  drawing  of  the 
nose,  eye,  or,  if  you  will,  look  at  the  niggling  upon 
the  coat  of  arms.  This  is  not  the  sure  drawing  of 
Cranach. 

464.   Portrait  of  a  Girl.    This  has  not  the  quality  in 

either  line  or  colour  of  No.  459.  Such  work  as  this 
is  very  frequent  in  European  collections  and  sug- 
gests that  there  was  a  Cranach  shop  that  turned 
out  much  inferior  work  under  the  name  of  the 
Elder  Cranach. 
1912.  Dou,  Gerard.  Portrait  of  a  Geographer.  This 
portrait  is  in  Don's  smooth  style  following  Rem- 
brandt. It  is  very  well  drawn  and  modelled  but 
too  smooth  in  the  surface.  It  should  be  compared 
with  No.  814  here,  by  Rembrandt,  to  establish  the 
possibility  of  Dou  having  done  both  works.  After 
that  you  should  go  to  the  small  cabinets  of  Dutch 
pictures  and  see  there  the  much  better  Dou,  No. 
907. 

907.    Portrait  of  a  Reader.     Here  is  a  portrait  by 

one  of  Rembrandt's  minor  pupils  that  is  extremely 
well  done.  It  is  almost  perfect  in  the  drawing,  is 
easily  and  cleverly  painted,  right  in  shadow,  fine  in 
colour,  and  excellent  in  atmospheric  setting.  It  is 
pictures  of  this  quality  that  have  frequently  been 


20  THE  HERMITAGE 

taken  from  Dou  and  given  to  Rembrandt.  No. 
814  in  this  gallery  is  an  illustration. 

905.   Woman  at  Window.    This  is  Dou  in  his  smooth, 

popular  style  which  he  adopted  after  he  forsook 
Rembrandt  and  his  methods. 

620.  Dyck,  Anthony  van.  Portrait  of  Sir  Thomas 
Chaloner.  This  portrait  is  fairly  well  drawn  in 
the  eyes,  mouth,  and  cheeks  though  flat  in  the 
figure,  slight  in  the  hand,  and  finical  in  the  doing 
of  the  hair  and  collar.  All  told,  it  is  not  a  strong 
performance,  not  a  great  Van  Dyck.  There  are 
some  thirty  Van  Dycks  in  this  gallery  but  many 
of  them  are  indifferent  examples  and  some  of  them 
are  decidedly  questionable. 

632.    Portrait  of  Dr.  Maharkyzas  (?).     It  is  sharp 

in  the  outline  of  the  nose  and  forehead  but  well 
drawn  in  the  eyes  and  rather  fine  in  the  articula- 
tion of  the  jaw  line.  How  realistic  it  is  in  the  draw- 
ing and  light-and-shade  of  the  right  hand!  The 
left  hand  has  been  badly  cleaned.  The  whole  por- 
trait has  been  hurt  by  bad  treatment. 

621.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     The  hands  here  are  not 

very  well  done  and  the  figure  is  a  little  vague. 
The  forehead,  eyes,  and  beard  are  good.  It  is  not 
a  strong  Van  Dyck  and  one  regards  it  with  a  feel- 
ing that  he  was  not  wholly  responsible  for  it.  There 
are  so  many  Van  Dycks  that  smack  of  the  shop 
and  assistants  in  almost  every  European  gallery. 

609.   Portrait  of  Charles  I.    This  is  a  full-length  of 

the  King  in  armour  and  seems  a  more  or  less  official 
portrait,  worked  up  by  Van  Dyck's  assistants,  and 
perhaps  given  a  final  lick  and  a  rub  by  Van  Dyck 
himself.     The  armour  is  well  enough  drawn  but  is 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  21 

a  bit  pretty  in  its  surfaces  for  Van  Dyck.  Notice 
that  the  left  arm  and  hand  are  lacking  in  convic- 
tion.   It  is  a  questionable  Van  Dyck. 

610.    Portrait  of  Henrietta  Maria.      It  is  evidently 

a  companion  piece  to  No.  609  and  is  of  the  same 
official  character.  Some  follower  of  Van  Dyck's, 
some  Sir  Peter  Lely,  might  have  done  the  work 
without  creating  a  sensation  in  the  art  world.  It 
is  pretty  all  through.  Notice  the  bad  placing  of 
the  hands  and  arms  and  that  will  give  you  the 
quality  of  the  whole  portrait.  It  should  be  com- 
pared with  No,  619,  for  the  pictures  have  much  in 
common — perhaps  a  common  origin. 

603.    Repose  in  Egypt  {La  Vierge  aux  Perdrix).    There 

is  a  version  of  this  picture  in  the  Pitti  (No.  437) 
and  other  versions  elsewhere.  This  St.  Petersburg 
example  is  usually  regarded  as  the  original.  It  is 
large  but  not  very  good.  The  colour  is  cheap,  es- 
pecially in  the  blue,  the  drawing  is  rather  uncertain 
(look  at  the  Madonna's  hands  or  her  knees),  and 
the  doing  of  the  trees,  fruit,  and  foliage  is  strongly 
suggestive  of  the  workshop  assistant.  Van  Dyck 
never  was  a  great  success  with  these  themes  though 
they  were  much  copied  by  his  pupils. 

629.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Man.     Here  is  a  picture 

that  apparently  has  the  handling  of  Rubens  with 
the  drawing  of  Van  Dyck.  It  may  have  been  done 
by  Van  Dyck  in  Rubens's  shop  and  afterward 
"touched  by  my  own  hand,*'  as  Rubens  expressed 
it.  A  little  pinched  in  the  drawing  but  a  fine  piece 
of  colour. 

622.    Portrait  of  Man  in  Fur  Collar.     This  portrait 

is  fairly  well  modelled  though  rather  smooth  and 


22  THE  HERMITAGE 

pretty  in  its  handling.  Possibly  the  surface  has 
been  softened  by  stippling.  The  whole  picture 
has  suffered  a  cleaning-room  change.  At  one  time 
it  was  cut  down  to  a  bust  portrait.  Still,  it  is  not 
a  bad  portrait  even  now. 

607.   The  Doubting  Thomas.    The  figure  of  Christ 

seems  abnormally  large  in  the  hands  and  over- 
modelled  in  the  shoulder  and  arm.  And  what 
weak,  wishy-washy  sentiment!  It  is  not  a  satis- 
factory Van  Dyck. 

608.  St.  Sebastian.    Here  is  more  weak  sentiment 

from  Van  Dyck,  his  shop,  or  his  school.  There  is 
more  or  less  affectation  about  it.  Notice  the  agony 
of  the  angel  or  the  make-believe  of  the  hand  draw- 
ing out  the  arrow.  The  flesh  colour  is  clearer  than 
usual  and  the  general  scheme  of  colour  is  fairly  ef- 
fective; but  it  is  not  a  good  example  of  Van  Dyck. 

630.  Portrait  of  the  Banker  Lumagne.  An  imi- 
tator of  Van  Dyck — Carbone — did  portraits  just 
as  good  as  this,  with  about  the  same  quality  as  this, 
and  in  the  same  blackish  tone  of  light  and  colour. 
It  is  probably  a  Van  Dyck  school  piece  or  shop 
piece. 

619.    Portrait  of  Lady  with  a  Tulip.     It  is  difficult 

to  believe  that  Van  Dyck  ever  sank  so  low  artis- 
tically as  to  paint  a  picture  of  this  mental  calibre 
and  technical  quality.  You  have  but  to  look  at 
the  face  for  its  mentality,  and  the  boneless,  pulpy, 
dropsical  modelling  of  the  hands  and  wrists  for 
its  technique.  The  sky — how  sweet  it  is  in  colour! 
The  whole  picture  is  of  the  same  quality.  It  was 
probably  done  by  some  follower  of  Sir  Peter 
Lely's  rank  or  even  lower.     Compare  it  closely 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  23 

with  No.  575  if  you  would  know  the  difference 
between  a  true  and  a  false  Van  Dyek. 

575.    Portrait  of  Isabella  Brandt.      This  is   an   ex- 

*  cellent  Van  Dyck,  done  in  his  Rubensesque  man- 
ner with  forceful  drawing  all  through.  How  well 
the  head  is  placed  on  the  neck,  and  how  beautiful 
the  surrounding  black  in  contrast  with  the  white! 
Notice  further  the  well-drawn  arms  and  sleeves, 
the  placing  of  the  figure  in  the  chair,  the  quiet  ease, 
the  repose  of  the  lady.  The  red  curtain  at  the  left 
may  be  a  trifle  high  in  key,  but  that  is  not  very 
important.  The  architecture  is  sketchily  done 
and  rightly  kept  down  in  hue.  The  picture  was 
formerly  ascribed  to  Rubens  and  only  recently 
given  to  Van  Dyck.  It  is  somewhat  rubbed  in 
the  face  and  hands. 

627.    The  So'Called  Family  of  Snyder s.     This  is  a 

different  group  from  the  Snyders  and  W^ife  at 
Cassel,  but  it  is  a  fairly  good  example  of  Van  Dyck 
when  under  the  influence  of  his  master,  Rubens. 
The  space  is  over-crowded  and  the  chairs  add  some- 
what to  the  jumble.  The  heads  are  well  relieved 
and  fit  well  on  the  necks  and  bodies,  especially  in 
the  woman's  portrait.  The  hands  are  a  little  too 
prominent  though  well  enough  drawn.  Notice  the 
modelling  of  the  child's  head  and  also  the  very 
good  colour  which  prevails  throughout.  The  pic- 
ture has  been  hurt  by  cleaning — so  much  so  that 
the  loading  of  white  on  the  foreheads  and  noses 
shows  too  prominently  and  the  heads  have  been 
somewhat  flattened. 

628.  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.  This  portrait  be- 
longs perhaps  to  Van  Dyck's  late  period,  when  his 
pupils  laid  in  most  of  his  portraits  and  he  did  lit- 


24  THE  HERMITAGE 

tie  more  than  give  them  a  few  finishing  touches, 
as  his  master,  Rubens,  had  done  before  him.  Of 
course,  there  are  weakness  and  affectation.  Notice 
this  latter  in  the  hands  and  somewhat  in  the 
pseudo-poetic  look  of  the  sitter.  The  picture  is  a 
little  dim  in  its  scheme  of  light,  and  the  hands  are 
blackened  through  dark  under-basing.  There  is  a 
certain  nobility  of  air  here  which  Van  Dyck  and  all 
his  pupils  knew  very  well  how  to  put  into  a  por- 
trait whether  the  sitter  possessed  it  or  not. 

623.   Portrait  of    a  Man,     This  portrait  is  hung 

very  high  (in  1913)  and  from  its  height  appears 
like  a  Dutch  portrait  of  some  Amsterdam  merchant. 
It  does  not  look  like  a  Van  Dyck.  No.  624  is  done 
in  the  same  manner  and  is  evidently  a  companion 
piece. 

631.    Portrait  of  the  Banker  Jahach.     Painted  in  a 

smooth  style  and  not  free  from  pose.  It  is  prob- 
ably shop  work,  turned  out  with  no  great  care  or 
love.  The  sitter  figured  extensively  in  the  art  an- 
nals of  his  time  and  was  supposed  to  be  a  person 
of  taste. 

635.    Portrait     of     Suzanne     Fourment     and     Her 

**  Daughter.  What  a  very  charming  scheme  of  colour ! 
The  lady's  skirt  with  its  gold-patterned  red-and- 
silver  bands,  the  child's  dress,  and  the  red  curtain 
are  all  in  perfect  harmony.  Van  Dyck  has  shown 
more  than  his  usual  colour  sense  here  in  holding 
these  different  tones  of  red  together.  The  gold 
of  the  lady's  bodice  carries  on  the  colour  scheme, 
while  the  white  of  the  ruff  and  the  black  of  the 
mantle  act  as  central  spots  to  focus  the  vision. 
What  fine  hands !  Notice  the  child's  hands  in  that 
of  the  mother,  how  beautifully  they  are  indicated. 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  25 

The  pose  of  the  child  with  the  push-up  against  the 
mother  is  again  excellent.  A  very  good  Van  Dyck 
— so  good  that  some  critics  are  disposed  to  think 
Rubens  did  it.  The  lady's  face  is  pallid  from  too 
much  cleaning — the  carnations  of  the  flesh  having 
been  rubbed  off.  This  is  measurably  true  of  the 
child's  face. 

633  1  Portraits  of  Two  Ladies.     These  are  weak  Lely- 

634  J  like  affairs,  and  it  is  not  believable  that  Van  Dyck 

had  a  hand  in  either  of  them.  Just  such  portraits 
were  turned  out  by  a  dozen  or  more  of  Van  Dyck's 
assistants,  pupils,  and  followers.  But  you  never 
hear  of  these  helpers  and  imitators.  It  is  always 
Van  Dyck  who  did  the  work  and  by  no  chance 
Jan  van  Belcamp,  Boeyermans,  Born,  Geldorp, 
Mytens,  Dobson,  Jameson — to  mention  only  the 
more  prominent  of  the  following. 

617.  Sir  Thomas  Wharton.  At  first  blush  this  por- 
trait looks  like  Van  Dyck  repeating  the  pose  of 
his  Charles  I  in  the  large  picture  of  the  Louvre; 
but  it  is  more  likely  the  performance  of  some 
follower  who  is  imitating  the  pose  in  the  Louvre 
picture.  It  is  a  weak  following  of  Van  Dyck,  en- 
tirely too  pretty  for  him  even  in  his  decadent  style. 
One  can  hardly  believe  that  such  a  picture  was  ever 
allowed  to  go  out  of  his  studio.  Carry  the  manner 
of  doing  the  left  sleeve  and  the  landscape  at  the 
left,  with  the  rock,  across  the  room  to  the  portrait 
of  the  Lady  with  the  Tulip  (No.  619)  and  you  will 
recognise  the  same  hand  at  work  in  both  pictures. 
It  was  almost  certainly  not  Van  Dyck's  hand. 

616.    Portrait    of  Philip,    Lord    Wharton.      This    is 

a  handsome  portrait  though  one  may  entertain 
doubts  about  its  origin.     The  figure  stands  well. 


26  THE  HERMITAGE 

has  a  very  good  setting,  and  a  fine  landscape. 
Moreover,  there  is  a  decided  charm  about  the 
picture.  But  there  is  no  force.  It  lacks  in  vim, 
spirit,  determination.  The  hand  gives  the  measure 
of  its  strength.  It  is  the  hand  of  a  woman.  Lely 
did  similar  portraits  to  this,  but  what  name  is 
Lely's  to  conjure  with  when  you  can  use  Van 
Dyck's  without  let  or  hinderance?  Another  version 
of  this  portrait  belongs  to  Lord  Lucas  and  has 
recently  been  loaned  to  the  National  Gallery,  Lon- 
don. Both  pictures  are,  of  course,  originals,  but  are 
they  originals  by  Van  Dyck? 

615.    Portrait  of  the  Earl  of  Danby.     This   portrait 

is  probably  referred  to  Van  Dyck's  "Genoese 
period"  because  of  its  pretentiousness  in  costume 
and  attitude,  but  whatever  period  it  be  assigned 
to  does  not  make  it  other  than  a  rather  thin  af- 
fair from  top  to  toe.  There  is  no  positive  strength 
in  type,  figure,  drawing,  or  colouring.  It  is  grace- 
ful, smooth  recitation,  of  which  there  is  enough 
and  to  spare  here  in  the  Hermitage  under  Van 
Dyck's  name.  He  was  profligate  and  improvi- 
dent in  his  latter-day  art  and  life,  but  not  so  feeble 
nor  so  careless  as  galleries,  collectors,  and  dealers 
would  make  him  out. 

580.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     Something  in  the  head 

speaks  for  Van  Dyck  but  much  in  the  hands  speaks 
for  Rubens.  It  is  a  betwixt-and-between  portrait 
of  a  kind  frequently  seen  in  the  galleries  at  Munich 
and  Dresden — a  Rubens-Van  Dyck  portrait.  But 
a  very  good  one. 

58L   Portrait  of  a  Woman.     This  is  a  companion 

portrait  to  No.  580  and  has  the  same  or  similar 
characteristics.     The  head  looks  as  though  Van 


EYCK,  JAN  VAN  27 

Dyck  had  painted  it,  but  the  hands  are  those  of 
Rubens.  Both  pictures  have  been  somewhat  en- 
larged from  their  original  dimensions  by  added 
canvas  at  the  sides.    They  are  very  good  portraits. 

840.  Eeckhout,  Gerbrandt  van  den.    A  Philosopher. 

A  very  good  piece  of  work  by  some  Rembrandt 
follower,  not  necessarily  Eeckhout.  The  drawing 
seems  a  little  unusual  for  him,  but  the  general 
look  of  the  picture  suggests  Eeckhout's  early  style. 
He  was  a  man  evidently  of  considerable  versatility, 
and  it  is  not  possible  to  pin  him  down  to  one  man- 
ner of  painting.  Something  of  an  imitator  of  others, 
he  adopted  several  manners  or  styles  at  different 
times. 

841.   A  Smoker.     This  picture  and  also  Nos.  1860 

and  838  give  one  a  meagre  and  rather  erroneous 
impression  of  Eeckhout.  He  was  a  Rembrandt  fol- 
lower, to  be  sure,  but  with  more  force  than  is  here 
indicated. 

433.  Escalante,  Juan  Antonio.  St.  Joseph  and  In-- 
fant  Christ.  The  picture  is  fairly  good  in  colour 
and  in  its  depth  of  shadow.  The  painter  belonged 
to  the  school  of  Madrid  and  was  influenced  by 
Tintoretto. 

443.  Eyck,  Jan  van.  Annunciation.  An  exceedingly 
interesting  picture  and  so  good  a  one  that  crit- 
ics of  rank  have  agreed  in  thinking  it  a  Jan 
van  Eyck.  Superficially,  it  is,  of  course,  in  his 
style  and  with  his  types,  but  there  is  a  certain 
cramped  and  laboured  workmanship  showing  in  the 
detail  that  militates  against  such  an  attribution. 
It  lacks  sureness  of  touch.  Van  Eyck  was  not  only 
confident  about  his  drawing,  but  he  worked  with 
an    ease    born    of    confidence.     His    surfaces    are 


* 


28  THE  HERMITAGE 

smooth  and  slip  readily  from  one  part  or  texture 
to  another  part  or  texture  without  hardness  and 
without  jar.  Here,  however,  there  is  the  small  in- 
dented or  imposed  surface  of  the  goldsmith,  in 
the  robe  of  the  angel,  for  instance.  The  same  kind 
of  hard,  metallic  quality  appears  in  the  wings  and, 
more  superficially,  in  the  hands  and  faces.  Again, 
the  colour,  the  light,  and  the  shade  are  hardly 
what  we  look  for  in  Jan  van  Eyck.  And  yet  it 
may  be  a  work  of  his  hand.  Certainly  it  is  very 
near  him.  It  possibly  came  out  of  his  shop  and 
was  largely  worked  upon  by  pupils.  Not  the  best 
of  the  attributed  Van  Eycks  but  a  picture  of  con- 
siderable merit.  Probably  the  left  wing  of  a  trip- 
tych. 

444.    Crucifixion  and  Last  Judgment.      These   are 

the  wings  of  a  triptych — the  central  panel  having 
disappeared.  The  Crucifixion  is  done  in  the  Van 
Eyck  manner  and  with  types  of  men,  women,  and 
horses  taken  from  the  celebrated  Adoration  of  the 
Lamb.  It  is  done  in  a  smoother  manner  than  No. 
443,  with  smaller  figures,  more  attenuated  hands 
and  faces.  The  panel  is  over-crowded  with  figures, 
and  the  colour  lacks  in  clearness.  In  the  distance 
the  city,  mountains,  and  sky  are  fairly  good.  The 
Last  Judgment  is  even  smaller  and  more  minia- 
ture-like in  character,  less  well  drawn,  more 
crowded  with  figures.  The  same  hand  probably  did 
both  panels,  but  that  hand  was  not  Jan  van  Eyck's. 
The  panels  are  probably  the  work  of  some  Van 
Eyck  follower  using  his  master's  materials. 

155.  Farinato,  Paolo.  Adoration  of  Magi.  This  pic- 
ture on  its  face  suggests  a  following  of  Paolo  Vero- 
nese, and,  Farinato  being  known  as  a  Paolo  fol- 


FRANCIA,  FRANCESCO  29 

lower,  the  picture  is  handed  over  to  him.  It  had 
one  other  chance  for  its  paternity — Zelotti.  What- 
ever nowadays  is  too  poor  for  Paolo  must  be 
Farinato  or  Zelotti.  School  of  Paolo  would  fill  the 
bill  better. 

236.  Feti,  Domenico.  Portrait  of  an  Actor.  This 
portrait  is  done  with  some  energy  and  is  a  good 
piece  of  coarse  painting.  See  also  the  David,  No. 
231. 

855.    Flinck,    Govert.      Portrait   of  a    Woman.      It   is 

necessary  to  say  again  that  the  pupils  and  followers 
of  Rembrandt  are  almost  as  much  confused  with 
one  another  as  with  Rembrandt  himself.  The 
early  deception  of  dealers  and  collectors  has  re- 
sulted in  a  very  tangled  web.  Here,  for  instance, 
is  a  portrait  put  down  to  Flinck  that  bears  every 
indication  of  being  by  Lievens.  It  has  the  Lievens 
softness  of  line  and  modelling.  Nothing  about  it 
points  to  Flinck. 

844.  Portrait  of  a  Man.    This  is  a  pretty  and  no 

doubt  a  popular  portrait.  It  is  thinly  painted  and 
fairly  well  drawn.  From  such  work  one  comes  to 
believe  that  Flinck  was  a  very  weak  brother  who 
could  paint  nothing  better  than  this.  That  is  an 
erroneous  conclusion.  The  best  work  of  Flinck  is 
given  to  Rembrandt  and  his  second  best  to  Bol, 
Eeckhout,  and  Lievens.  No.  842  is  of  the  same 
weak  quality  as  this  and  even  smoother  in  surface. 

1851.    Florentine  School.     Coronation  of  the  Madonna. 

A  fine  bit  of  decoration — frame  and  all.  What 
very  good  colour! 

69.   Francia,    Francesco.      Madonna,     Child,    and 
Saints.     A  pyramidal  composition  which  fills  the 


30  THE  HERMITAGE 

space  and  the  arched  top  fairly  well.  The  Francia 
sentiment  is  here  and  some  of  the  affectation  of 
his  school.  They  show  in  the  inclination  of  the 
heads  and  the  pseudo-sadness  of  the  faces.  The 
angels  below  are  very  good.  It  seems  a  rather 
odd  picture  for  Francia  though  the  colour  speaks 
for  him. 

68.  Francia,  Giacomo.  Madonna  and  Child.  This 
is  a  poorly  done  school  piece  with  the  false 
signature  of  Francesco  Francia  on  the  globe  held 
in  the  Child's  hand.  It  is  badly  drawn  with  a  crude 
landscape.  Ordinarily,  in  these  piping  times  of 
attributions,  it  would  be  given  to  Boateri. 
1848.  Garofalo,  (Benvenuto  Tisi).  Marriage  in  Cana. 
The  picture  is  large  and  in  composition  somewhat 
unusual  for  Garofalo.  It  is  not  badly  done  in  the 
figures,  the  table,  and  the  still-life.  The  shadows 
are  dark  and  the  colours  sooty.  The  background 
seems  to  have  been  inspired  by  Raphael's  School 
of  Athens.  Originally  the  picture  was  arched  at 
the  top  but  is  now  pieced  out  with  added  canvas 
and  squared  up.  Two  pendent  pictures,  much  in- 
jured, are  at  Gatschina. 

59.  Adoration  of  Shepherds.    A  large  but  some- 
what inferior  Garofalo.    It  lacks  in  quality. 

60.   Holy  Family.    A  typical  Garofalo  shop  piece, 

rather  good  in  colour  and  pleasing  in  sentiment, 
but  the  kind  of  work  that  came  from  his  shop  in  a 
stream  and  reflective  of  the  work  of  assistants 
rather  than  the  master. 

61.    Christ  on    the    Way  to  Calvary.     The  colours 

are  forbidding  and  the  sky  and  clouds  are  crude. 
The  Garofalo  output  shows  better  in  smaller  pic- 
tures. 


** 


GIORGIONE  (GIORGIO  BARBARELLI)  31 

867.  Gelder,  Aert  de.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  This  por- 
trait and  also  No.  1831  give  little  or  no  hint  of 
Aert  de  Gelder.  The  latter  is  perhaps  nearer  to 
him  than  the  former,  but  neither  of  them  is  char- 
acteristic or  even  probable.  The  Prodigal  Son 
(No.  797)  in  this  gallery  is  assigned  to  Rembrandt 
but  it  is  by  Aert  de  Gelder.  Probably  the  Rem- 
brandt here  of  Pallas  Athena  (No.  809)  is  also  by 
Aert  de  Gelder.  Either  of  the  two  so-called  Rem- 
brandts  is  nearer  De  Gelder  than  these  attributed 
portraits. 

112.  Giorgione  (Giorgio  Barbarelli).  Judith.  This 
picture  is  one  of  the  gems  of  the  Hermitage — a 
picture  refined  in  spirit  and  charming  in  form  and 
colour.  Perhaps  the  spirit  of  it  is  its  most  pleasing 
quality.  It  is  more  serenely  beautiful  than  any 
Italian  picture  in  the  gallery,  not  excepting  the 
so-called  Raphaels.  The  purity  and  loveliness  of 
the  head  are  in  measure  paralleled  in  the  head  of 
the  Giorgione  Venus  at  Dresden,  that  of  the  St. 
Sebastian  at  Vienna  (No.  63),  the  Castelfranco 
Madonna,  and  in  lesser  degree  in  the  portrait  at 
Berlin  (No.  12).  It  seems  to  agree  with  all  these 
in  its  exaltation,  its  elevation,  its  serenity,  its  re- 
finement. 

Nor  does  it  lack  in  agreement  with  the  Dresden 
Venus  as  regards  the  figure.  One  feels  the  same 
clearness  of  outline  and  loveliness  of  modelling, 
the  same  flow  of  all  the  parts  into  one  perfect 
whole.  Notice  how  the  head  imperceptibly  slips 
into  the  neck  and  shoulders,  the  waist  into  the 
hips,  the  legs  into  the  feet.  If  you  wish  to  apply 
that  badly  misused  word  "rhythm''  you  will  find 
its  illustration  here  in  the  unity  of  this  figure. 
Smaller  resemblances  to  things  Giorgionesque  ap- 


32  THE  HERMITAGE 

pear  here  and  there.  The  foot  is  like  the  Dresden 
Venus,  the  mouth  is  curved  at  the  corners,  the 
sword  agrees  with  the  armour  in  the  Castelfranco 
Madonna,  and  again  the  landscape,  sea,  sky,  foH- 
age  are  quite  in  the  style  of  the  Castelfranco  pic- 
ture. 

But  there  are  also  some  differences.  The  pose 
of  the  figure  with  the  left  leg  forward  is  seen  later 
in  Titian's  St.  Margaret  at  Madrid  but  not  in 
any  Giorgione.  Nor  is  the  colour  faded  out  in  the 
high  lights  usual  with  Giorgione  or  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  Venetian  art.  It  is  more  peculiarly 
Milanese.  This  is  equally  true  of  the  light-and- 
shade  which  seems  too  fragile  for  Giorgione.  The 
type  seems  right  enough  but  about  the  accessories 
one  cannot  be  so  sure.  The  crinkled  drapery,  the 
hands,  the  meagreness  of  the  enfolding  shadows, 
the  doing  of  the  head  under  the  foot,  the  grass 
near  it,  the  tree — all  apparently  point  to  Milanese 
work.  It  is  amazingly  fine,  very  beautifully  done; 
but  was  it  done  by  Giorgione  or  Cesare  da  Sesto? 
It  is  quite  worthy  of  the  young  Giorgione  and 
seems  very  close  to  him,  but  with  our  present  limited 
knowledge  of  him  it  is  impossible  to  be  positive 
about  his  painting  this  picture.  It  was  formerly 
thought  a  Raphael  and  afterward  passed  as  a  Mo- 
retto.  It  now  seems  to  lie  between  Giorgione  and 
Cesare  da  Sesto,  though  Cesare  painted  no  work 
of  this  importance  at  present  known  to  us.  In 
any  event,  we  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that 
it  is  a  beautiful  picture. 

The  white  veiling  of  the  under  garment  is  dark- 
ened below  the  knee  and  is  not  now  in  value,  the 
leg  is  repainted  in  gouts,  the  hands  are  badly  hurt, 
also  the  head  of  Judith  and  the  head  under  her 


GRANDI,  ERCOLE  DI  GIULIO  CESARE         33 

foot.  Probably  the  wing  of  an  altar-piece  the 
other  parts  of  which  have  disappeared. 

1655.  Girolamo  da  Santa  Croce.  Madonna,  Child, 
and  St.  John.  The  picture  is  charming  in  the 
Madonna,  the  children,  the  landscape;  and  dec- 
oratively  very  lovely  in  colour.  The  attitude  and 
the  parapet  recall  the  Warrior  Adoring  the  Child 
by  Catena  in  the  National  Gallery,  London.  The 
picture  is  nearer,  perhaps,  to  Catena  than  to  Giro- 
lamo. 

1945.   A   Saint.     This   and   its   companion   picture 

both  show  the  yellow-streaked  sky  and  the  pe- 
culiar figures  characteristic  of  Girolamo  da  Santa 
Croce,  but  they  are  not  wonderful  works  in  any 
way. 

446.  Goes,  Hugo  van  der.  Annunciation.  The  in- 
terior is  very  nice.  The  picture  hardly  gives  us  the 
strength  of  Van  der  Goes  but  has  some  charm  of 
colour.  There  is  a  distant  landscape  of  consider- 
able beauty. 

1721.  Goyen,  Jan  van.  Landscape.  It  is  a  rather 
mediocre  Van  Goyen  in  colour,  in  atmosphere,  in 
sky,  and  in  clouds.  And  what  could  any  one  say 
in  praise  of  the  frame? 

22.  Granacci,  Francesco.  Adoration  of  Child.  The 
picture  has  been  variously  attributed,  as  the  cata- 
logue suggests.  It  belongs  to  the  Florentine  School 
and  is  certainly  nearer  to  Granacci  than  to  Peru- 
gino  or  Ghirlandajo,  its  former  putative  parents. 
The  Madonna  suggests  Bugiardini,  as  do  the  trees 
and  the  landscape. 

65.  Grandi,  Ercole  di  Giulio  Cesare.  Deposition. 
It  was  formerly  put  down  to  Ortolano  until  Morelli 


34  THE  HERMITAGE 

attributed  it  to  Grandi.  It  shows  the  influence  of 
Francia  and  is  hardly  well  enough  done  to  be  by 
any  painter  of  rank. 

411.  Greco,  II  (Domenico  Theotocopuli).  Portrait 
of  a  Poet.  This  portrait  shows  II  Greco  in  his  less 
mannered  style  and  is  even  more  sane  and  serious 
than  the  portraits  by  him  in  the  museum  at  Toledo. 
It  is  rather  finely  done. 

1962.   Peter  and  Paul.     Here  are  the  mannerisms 

of  II  Greco  but  they  do  not  appear  in  highly  ex- 
aggerated form.  There  is  a  morbid  strain  in  the 
sentiment  as  well  as  in  the  colour  but  both  are  rather 
attractive.  Morbidity  is  something  that  calls  for 
praise  when  seen  in  Botticelli  but  is  often  objected 
to  in  II  Greco.     Why? 

1847.  Guardi,  Francesco.  A  Prospect.  What  a  very 
*  charming  picture  in  light,  shadow,  air,  colour! 
And  how  vigorously  the  figures  have  been  put 
in!  They  have  character  and  action  as  well  as 
colour.  So  much  rubbish  is  now  listed  under  the 
names  of  Canaletto  and  Guardi  that  it  is  a  pleasure 
to  meet  occasionally  so  good  a  picture  as  this. 

1648.   A  View.    It  is  rather  striking  in  its  light,  air, 

distance,  colour;  but  it  has  not  the  quality  of  the 
Guardi,  No.  1847,  hanging  near  it. 

771.  Hals,  Frans.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  It  is  a  care- 
less performance — not  breadth  of  handling  but 
mere  carelessness,  want  of  precision.  Look  at  the 
hands  or  the  hard,  ropy  hair.  It  looks  as  though 
some  pupil  in  the  shop  had  been  set  at  work  upon 
it.  This  doubtless  often  happened,  yet  when  and 
where  do  we  hear  mention  of  a  Hals  school  piece? 


HALS,  FRANS  35 

770.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     This,  again,  looks  like  a 

shop  piece,  emanating  from  Hals  but  with  much 
pupils'  or  assistants'  work  about  it.  The  cheeks, 
eyes,  and  mouth  are  fairly  well  drawn,  but  notice 
the  indecision  of  the  hair.  The  pupils  of  Hals  are 
not  negligible.  If  you  think  so  pray  look  at  No. 
774  in  another  room.  For  a  wonder  it  is  put  down 
to  Frans  Hals  the  Younger.  There  were  four 
sons,  all  of  them  painters,  working  with  the  Elder 
Hals,  but  most  of  their  pictures,  with  some  by 
Judith  Leyster  and  Dirk  Hals,  are  under  the  name 
of  the  Elder  Hals. 

772.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     Here  IS  a  portrait  that 

comes  precious  near  to  some  one  of  the  Judith 
Leyster  calibre.  It  is  not  drawn  in  the  head, 
mouth,  nose,  and  chin  with  the  strength  and  cer- 
tainty of  Frans  Hals.  And  what  shall  one  say  in 
defence  of  the  drawing  of  the  figure?  Go  close  and 
notice  the  petty  niggling  of  the  hair  and  the  in- 
effective work  on  the  white  linen  at  the  elbow — or 
is  it  the  wrist?  The  signature  at  the  right  has  been 
painted  in  and  painted  out  so  many  times  by  various 
owners  that  there  is  now  a  black  spot  on  the  canvas. 
Evidently  it  has  not  proved  satisfactory. 

773.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     This  is  by  the  Elder  Hals 

more  surely  than  any  other  work  attributed  to 
him  in  the  gallery.  It  is  more  definite,  more  cer- 
tain in  drawing  and  handling,  though  it  still  has  a 
feeling  of  having  been  worked  upon  by  some  pupil 
in  the  school.  You  could  hardly  fit  this  figure  into 
any  one  of  the  shooting-company  pictures  at  Haar- 
lem. It  lacks  the  vigour  and  force  of  the  Haarlem 
works.  In  type  it  is  a  little  like  the  Jolly  Toper 
(No.  1091)  at  Amsterdam,  but  again,  it  has  not  the 


36  THE  HERMITAGE 

vitality  and  spirit  of  the  Amsterdam  picture.  It 
is,  however,  the  best  Hals  in  the  Hermitage — one 
had  almost  said  the  only  one. 

774.  Hals  the  Younger,  Frans.  Boy  with  Armour. 
*  Here  is  a  much  better  picture  than  is  sometimes 
given  to  the  Elder  Hals.  It  is,  in  fact,  not  only 
good  in  characterisation  but  also  in  drawing  and 
handling.  Notice  the  ease,  if  not  the  absolute  cer- 
tainty, with  which  the  hair  is  brushed  in.  The 
armour  is  excellent  and  holds  its  place  well.  And 
what  a  fine  scheme  of  colour!  It  is  sober,  serious, 
subdued,  and  yet  harmonious  and  pleasing.  If 
Frans  the  Younger  could  do  work  of  this  calibre, 
why  have  we  not  seen  more  of  it?  Were  all  his 
pictures  of  boys  sold  under  his  father's  name 
and  monogram?  One  may  entertain  grave  doubts 
about  many  of  the  laughing-boy  pictures  put  down 
to  the  Elder  Hals  at  Cassel  and  elsewhere.  Judith 
Leyster,  we  feel  sure,  did  some  of  them.  Why 
could  not  Frans  the  Younger  have  done  others  of 
them? 

611.   Hanneman,  Adriaan.    William  of  Nassau-Orange. 

This  portrait  shows  the  facile  following  of  Van 
Dyck  by  an  eclectic  painter  who  derived  first  from 
Mytens  and  then  from  Van  Dyck  himself.  So 
close  was  the  following  that  this  portrait  was  long 
attributed  to  Van  Dyck,  but  the  drawing  and  han- 
dling finally  proved  unconvincing  and  the  picture 
was  given  to  Hanneman.  Who  knows  now  if  it 
is  rightly  placed?  How  many  of  this  man's  pic- 
tures are  still  masquerading  under  Van  Dyck's 
name?  The  portrait  here  attributed  to  Van  Dyck 
(No.  617)  seems  to  be  by  the  same  hand  as  this 
one.     When  it  is  considered  that  there  were  a 


HOLBEIN,  AMBROSIUS  37 

score  or  more  of  Van  Dyek  followers  of  the  Hanne- 
man  rank  and  very  few  of  their  pictures  to  be  found 
under  their  names,  the  chances  of  Van  Dyck  being 
saddled  with  their  productions  seem  very  large. 

490.   Heemskerck,    Maerten    van.      Crucifixion.     A 

triptych  that  has  some  of  Heemskerck's  strong 
drawing  about  it  and  yet  is  not  a  satisfactory  or 
representative  example  of  the  man.  The  large  pic- 
ture in  the  Haarlem  Museum  (No.  155)  is  worth 
a  dozen  of  it.  The  donors  and  their  patrons  in 
the  wings  are  much  the  best  portions  of  the  trip- 
tych. Possibly  a  workshop  picture  but  not  negli- 
gible for  that  reason. 

1725.   Heerschop,   Hendrik.      Mother  and  Child  (?> 

The  picture  is  rambling  in  drawing  but  very  good 
in  colour.  The  figure  is  centralised  in  light,  has 
loaded  high  lights  and  dark  surroundings. 

1713.   Heyden,  Jan  van  der.    Landscape  with  Houses. 

The  sky  is  glassy — a  common  appearance  with  this 
painter — but  he  usually  gives  us,  as  here,  good 
atmosphere  and  buildings  that  are  set  well  into 
the  landscape.  A  minute,  painstaking  Dutchman 
who  was  fond  of  placing  every  brick  in  a  wall  just 
exactly  right  but  who  was,  nevertheless,  an  artist 
with  a  feeling  for  light,  air,  and  colour. 

466.    Holbein,   Ambrosius.      Portrait  of  Young  Man. 

The  head  is  rather  well  done  though  the  shoulders 
are  lax  in  drawing  and  the  hand  is  bad.  The 
colour  is  pleasing.  Perhaps  the  best  part  of  it  is 
the  landscape  and  the  Germanised  Renaissance 
architecture  which  make  a  decorative  background 
for  the  figure.  The  supposed  painter  was  a  brother 
of  Hans  Holbein  the  Younger. 


38  THE  HERMITAGE 

i 

861.  Hooch,  Pieter  de.  A  Concert.  This  is  a  poor 
following  of  Pieter  de  Hooch  by  some  one  less 
skilled  than  Janssens  and  no  better  than  Verkolie. 
Notice  the  bad  drawing  and  painting  of  the  faces, 
hands,  the  table-cloth,  the  mandolin.  Even  the 
dog  on  the  floor  has  been  distorted. 

860.    Lady  and  Her  Cook.     Here  is  an  entirely  dif- 

*  ferent  tale  from  No.  861.  The  picture  is  care- 
fully drawn  and  easily  painted.  Any  feature  of 
it  that  you  may  pick  out  will  bear  close  analysis. 
Look,  for  instance,  at  the  colour  of  the  dresses  or 
of  the  whole  picture.  It  is  excellent.  The  light, 
air,  and  distance  are  again  quite  perfect.  Notice 
the  receding  planes  of  the  picture — how  absolutely 
each  keeps  its  place  and  all  of  them  blend  and 
run  together !  Even  the  pretty  little  scene  through 
the  garden  gate  is  in  perfect  keeping.  Compare  it 
with  No.  861  and  you  cannot  fail  to  see  the  differ- 
ence between  a  genuine  De  Hooch  and  an  imitation. 

943.    Bedroom    with    Figures.      It    is    an    unusual 

subject  for  De  Hooch,  but  that  is  about  the  only 
reason  for  doubting  its  being  done  by  him.  There 
is  beautiful  colour  in  the  woman's  dress,  a  charm- 
ing light,  some  very  good  drawing,  and  some  easy 
handhng.  Notice  the  Van  Mieris  (No.  915)  op- 
posite, and  contrast  its  cold  light  and  colour,  its 
metallic  textures,  with  this  De  Hooch.  The  back- 
ground comes  up  and  fits  about  the  bed  rather 
closely,  in  a  way  characteristic  of  Janssens  but  not 
foreign  to  the  young  De  Hooch.  The  picture  has 
borne  several  names  before  its  present  one. 

1918.  Isenbrant,  Adriaen.  St.  Jerome,  The  picture 
shows  a  following  of  Gerard  David  but  is  not 
necessarily  by  Isenbrant,  who  is  merely  a  name  and 


JORDAENS,  JACOB  39 

about  whom  we  know  little  or  nothing.  In  the 
European  galleries  one  meets  with  a  number  of 
pictures  soft  in  drawing  and  modelling,  dark  in 
shadows,  and  grey-blue  in  colour  that  seem  to 
have  been  painted  by  one  man.  The  man  is  called 
Isenbrant,  but  the  real  Isenbrant  may  have  been 
quite  guiltless  of  the  pictures.  No.  454  seems  more 
typical  of  this  David  follower  than  the  picture  be- 
fore us. 

650.  Jordaens,   Jacob.     Satyr  and  Peasant,     It  is   a 

hot,  rather  brutal  Jordaens  but  has  some  strength 
about  it.  He  did  this  subject  several  times  or  had 
it  done  in  his  shop.  Other  versions  at  Cassel, 
Budapest,  Munich. 

651.    Family  Meal.     This  is  a  rather  fine  Jordaens 

though  restless  in  composition  and  perhaps  over- 
filled with  figures.  The  light  and  colour  of  it  are 
very  good.  It  formerly  passed  under  the  title  of 
the  Family  of  Rubens. 

652.    Group  about  Table.     The  visitor  will  probably 

not  care  to  linger  long  over  the  pictures  of  Jordaens, 
but  perhaps  he  can  take  time  to  notice  in  this  pic- 
ture the  roundly  modelled  heads.  How  strong  and 
virile  they  are! 

653.   Portrait  of  a  Man.    The  student  interested  in 

attributions  can  dig  out  of  this  fine  portrait  many 
analogies  with  the  portrait  of  Admiral  Borro  in 
the  Berlin  Gallery,  there  thought  to  be  by  Velas- 
quez. Start  with  the  drawing  of  the  head  and  do 
not  overlook  the  hands,  for  they  are  the  most  posi- 
tive of  all  in  resemblance  to  the  Borro.  The  column, 
the  curtain,  the  costume,  and  particularly  the  han- 
dling of  the  brush,  all  seem  to  wake  memories  of  the 


40  THE  HERMITAGE 

Borro  which  Is  probably  not  Borro,  and  the  Velas- 
quez which  is  probably  not  Velasquez  but  Jordaens. 

864.  Koninck,  Salomon.  Interior  with  Figures.  No- 
tice here  the  Rembrandtesque  quality  of  the  room 
and  the  window  with  its  light.  Just  such  pictures 
as  this  are  continually  being  fastened  upon  the  name 
of  Rembrandt,  whereas  they  were  done  by  his  pu- 
pils and  followers,  such  as  Koninck,  Victoor,  and 
Poorter.  In  this  gallery  under  Rembrandt's  name 
the  picture  No.  798  will  disclose  similar  effects. 

837.  Croesus  and  Solon.  In  the  manner  of  its  treat- 
ment, especially  in  the  turban  and  jewels,  this  pic- 
ture should  be  compared  with  the  alleged  Rem- 
brandt, No.  1777,  in  this  gallery. 

1917.  Kulmbach,  Hans  von.  Demonstration  of  the 
Cross.  These  two  panels  are  now  very  handsome 
in  colour  in  spite  of  much  repainting.  Some  of  the 
angels'  robes  are  beautiful,  and  there  is  enough  awk- 
wardness about  the  figures  to  make  them  naive. 
Notice  the  little  angel  high  up  on  the  panel.  The 
donor  in  the  corner  has  a  fine  head  though  it  is 
now  injured. 

13a.  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  Madonna  and  Child  (Ma- 
donna Litta).  This  Is  a  picture  about  which  there 
has  been  much  controversy  as  regards  its  painter. 
Originally  it  passed  as  a  Cesare  da  Sesto;  much 
later  Waagen  promoted  it  to  a  Leonardo  da  Vinci; 
Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  thought  it  designed  by 
Leonardo  but  executed  by  Zenale;  Morelli  believed 
it  by  Bernardino  de'  Conti.  It  is  almost  certainly 
by  the  painter  of  the  Madonna  and  Child  at  Buda- 
pest (No.  115),  there  ascribed  to  Boltraffio.  The 
hands  (especially  the  fingers),  the  feet,  the  head,  and 


LEYDEN,  LUCAS  VAN  41 

the  body  of  the  Child  are  very  like  in  both  pictures. 
The  Budapest  picture  is  probably  by  Bernardino, 
and  so  is  this  Hermitage  example. 

It  is  a  Leonardesque  picture,  graceful,  elevated, 
full  of  right  feeling,  and  originally,  no  doubt,  well 
drawn,  but  now  it  is  sadly  messed  by  repainting,  so 
that  the  hands  are  ill  favoured,  the  colours  crude, 
the  sky  raw.  It  has  been  entirely  repainted — so 
much  so  that  no  one  can  tell  exactly  what  is  under 
it.  But  a  graceful  group  and  very  lovely  in  its 
contours. 

15.    Portrait  of  a  Woman.     This  is  evidently  an 

attempt  by  some  Leonardo  follower  to  do  the 
Mona  Lisa,  nude  to  the  waist,  and  rather  a  poor 
attempt  at  that.  The  hands  and  arms  are  bone- 
less and  the  figure  spineless.  The  hair  is  ropy, 
the  eyes  are  not  true  to  each  other,  and  the  land- 
scape is  very  crude.  It  will  never  do  for  Leonardo. 
See  the  catalogue  note  upon  it. 

468.    Leyden,  Lucas  van.     Healing  the  Blind.     It  has 

*  the  look  of  Lucas  in  types  and  in  drawing,  but  the 
handling  seems  much  too  coarse  and  rough  for 
him.  He  was  usually  more  limpid  and  flowing 
with  his  brush,  as  may  be  noticed  in  the  Berlin 
examples  of  him.  This  Hermitage  example  may 
have  been  hurt  by  repainting,  for  it  was  probably 
at  one  time  transferred  from  wood  to  canvas  and 
injured  in  the  process.  The  lines  of  the  wooden 
panel  are  still  apparent  in  the  canvas.  It  is  a  fine, 
decorative  triptych,  with  very  brilliant  colours  and 
a  superb  mountain  landscape  at  the  back.  How 
fine,  again,  decoratively,  the  figures  in  the  wings 
holding  the  shields!  The  newly  gilt  frame  hurts 
the  general  effect. 


42  THE  HERMITAGE 

816.  Lievens,  Jan.  Portrait  of  an  Old  Man.  This  IS 
a  fairly  good  example  of  Lievens  and  shows  his 
soft  modelling  and  his  light  scheme  of  colour. 
Moreover,  it  discloses  a  technical  trick  of  his  which 
he  employed  almost  invariably — that  is,  ploughing 
the  beard  or  hair  with  the  wooden  end  of  the  brush 
while  the  paint  was  wet.  His  pictures  often  pass 
for  Rembrandts,  for  instance,  at  Cassel,  Nos.  229, 
230,  231,  233.  Indeed,  this  picture  was  once  at- 
tributed to  Rembrandt. 

1967.  Lippi,  Filippino.  Madonna  Adoring.  Certainly  a 
*  handsome  picture  though  now  a  little  flattened  by 
rubbing  so  that  the  angels'  wings  at  the  left  are 
diaphanous.  You  can  see  the  towers  of  the  city 
through  the  wings.  The  flowers  are  pretty  but 
not  accurately  done  and  the  foreground  of  grass 
is  formal  and  mannered.  The  background  sug- 
gests Mr.  Berenson's  painter — Amico  di  Sandro. 
The  motive  of  angels  and  flowers  is  not  unlike  the 
Botticini  in  the  Pitti,  No.  347.  The  picture  is 
hardly  by  Filippino  but  is  a  very  good  picture  for 
all  that.  The  angels  are  lovely  in  sentiment  and  the 
colour  is  excellent.     Not  in  the  catalogue  in  1913. 

115.  Lotto,  Lorenzo.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  The  in- 
terior of  the  room  with  the  small  figures  at  the 
back  near  the  window  is  very  good.  The  figure 
of  the  man  is  rather  bad  though  the  hands  and 
head  are  fairly  well  done.  The  colour  is  a  little 
raw  in  the  red.  It  has  some  force  but  little  of  the 
spirit  of  Lotto  about  it.  At  first  it  was  an  Antonio 
Moro,  then  a  Bordone,  now  a  Lotto—for  the  pass- 
ing hour. 

1939.    Christ    on    the    Mount.      It   looks    Lottesque 

and  yet  has  something  about  it  reminiscent  of 


LUINI,  BERNARDINO  43 

Florence  and  Andrea  del  Sarto's  School.  Notice 
the  apostle  at  the  extreme  left  for  Andrea's  type. 
Moreover,  the  landscape  is  half  Florentine.  And 
yet  the  feeling  and  colour  are  Lottesque.  Not 
catalogued  in  1913. 

76.    Madonna  and  Child.     There  is  no  very  good 

reason  to  think  this  picture  by  Lotto.  It  is  some- 
what removed  from  him  in  type,  colour,  drawing, 
and  spirit.  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  thought  it  a 
ruined  picture  merely  reminiscent  of  Lotto.  Be- 
fore their  date  it  was  considered  a  Leonardo  da 
Vinci,  then  a  Cesare  da  Sesto.  It  cuts  a  poor  fig- 
ure at  the  present  time.  The  hands  are  bad,  the 
hair  is  hard,  the  curtained  background  fails  to 
keep  its  place.  It  is  a  version  of  a  picture  in  the 
Johnson  Collection,  Philadelphia. 

71.  Luini,  Bernardino.     Madonna  and  Child.    An 

unusual  Luini  in  type  and  colour,  with  more  spirit 
than  is  common  with  Luini  but  not  enough  to 
raise  it  above  sweetness.  It  was  formerly  regarded 
as  a  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  In  the  northern  galleries 
there  are  few  of  the  sooty-looking  Milanese  pic- 
tures that  have  not  had  their  day  as  Leonardos. 

72.    St.  Catherine.     Dark  in  shadow  and  now  false 

in  value  as  regards  the  high  lights,  especially  in 
the  linen  at  the  wrists.  The  white  flowers  of  the 
hair  make  spots  on  the  pattern,  the  drapery  is 
much  criss-crossed  over  the  figure  and  is  angular  in 
its  foldings,  the  hands  are  a  little  short  and  pulpy. 
But  it  is  a  typical  Luini  though  once  put  down  to 
Leonardo.  Probably  much  repainted  at  the  right 
and  left. 

73.   St.  Sebastian.     Lulni  is  almost  always  weak, 

but  here  he  has  tried  to  be  strong  by  taking  a 


44  THE  HERMITAGE 

young  Samson  for  a  model.  In  spite  of  it  the 
picture  is  merely  pretty  from  start  to  finish. 
There  is  something  Germanic  about  the  type,  as 
though  Luini  had  been  studying  northern  masters. 
See  the  catalogue  note  on  this  picture. 

1969.  Maineri,  Gian  Francesco.  Christ  Bearing  the 
Cross*  A  picture  similar  in  subject  and  treatment 
is  in  the  UfEzi  (No.  1572),  put  down  to  Maineri. 
Presumably  that  is  how  this  Hermitage  picture 
derives  its  name.  It  has  about  it  a  suggestion  of 
Luini,  of  Jacopo  di  Barbara,  of  Giorgione,  of  North 
Italy,  though  Maineri  belonged  at  Ferrara.  Not 
a  great  work. 

307.    Maratta,  Carlo.     Portrait  of  Clement  IX.     It  Is 

overposed  and  too  conscious,  weak  in  spirit  and 
poor  in  colour,  but  it  is  not  badly  painted.  There 
are  other  versions  of  it  at  Bologna  and  Chiswick. 

74.    Melzi,  Francesco.     Portrait  of  a  Young  Woman. 

This  is  the  so-called  Columbine — a  picture  with  a 
history  and  considerable  mystery.  It  belonged  to 
Marie  de  Medicis,  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  William  II 
of  Holland,  and  was  celebrated  under  the  names 
of  Columbine,  Flora,  Vanity.  Of  course  it  was 
a  picture  by  no  less  a  person  than  Leonardo  da 
Vinci.  But  now  that  the  prosaic  truth  has  pushed 
itself  forward  the  Columbine  becomes  just  a  Por- 
trait of  a  Young  Woman,  and  not  by  Leonardo  but 
by  one  of  his  weaker  followers,  Francesco  Melzi. 
Other  painters'  names  were  tried  but  failed  to  con- 
vince. It  was  pronounced  a  Luini  by  Waagen,  a 
Solario  by  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  and  Morelli 
thought  it  "an  undoubted  work  by  Glanpietrino " ; 
but  the  type  and  workmanship  are  too  closely  re- 


METSYS,  QUENTIN  45 

lated  to  the  Melzi  at  Berlin  (No.  222)  to  leave  any 
doubt  about  the  same  hand  having  done  both  pic- 
tures. 

And  the  saddest  part  of  all  is  that  the  picture 
is  not  a  very  good  one.  It  is  impressive  at  the 
first  glance  but  does  not  hold  up  well.  The  senti- 
ment is  weak.  It  is  the  Leonardo  type  sweetened 
and  prettified  to  weakness.  The  drawing  lacks  in 
energy  and  force,  the  contours  are  just  a  little  too 
rounded,  the  hands  a  little  too  soft  and  pulpy. 
Moreover,  the  arabesque  of  leaves  with  their  Japa- 
nese push-in  from  nowhere  is  too  prominent,  too 
spotty,  too  hard.  It  is  a  little  tawdry  because 
over-accented.  The  high  lights  of  the  hair  are 
disturbing  for  the  same  reason.  The  pretty  type, 
the  patterned  dress,  the  unusual  framing  of  leaves 
and  flowers  have  combined  to  give  this  portrait 
more  fame  than  it  deserves. 

880.  Metsu,  Gabriel.  Interior  with  Figure.  Appar- 
ently it  is  as  good  a  picture  as  any  Terborch,  but 
there  is  considerable  difference  between  the  men 
both  mentally  and  technically.  Metsu  has  less 
dignity  and  simplicity,  is  more  ornate  in  his  colour, 
involved  in  his  drawing,  and  glassy  in  his  surfaces. 
But  here  is  a  charming  picture  of  his,  nevertheless. 
No.  878,  while  just  as  good  in  its  drawing,  is  disagree- 
able in  its  slate  colour  and  inky  in  its  background. 

877.    Interior    with    Figures.     The   work    is    easily 

painted  and  is  brilliant  in  colour  but  a  little  flashy. 
The  whites  seem  crude.  Even  a  painter  of  Metsu's 
modest  rank  can  hardly  be  held  responsible  for  all 
the  works  ascribed  to  him. 

449.  Metsys,  Quentin.  Madonna  in  Glory.  The  col- 
our is  somewhat  hot  and  the  aureole  surround- 


46  THE  HERMITAGE 

ing  the  Madonna  with  its  black-edged  clouds  is 
crudely  done.  It  is  not  very  good  work  and  cer- 
tainly not  work  in  any  way  related  to  Quentin 
Metsys.  It  is  now  generally  considered  to  be  by 
Jan  Prevost. 

742.    Mierevelt,  Michiel  Janz.     Portrait  of  a  Child. 

If  we  should,  for  the  nonce,  forget  the  matter  of 
attributions  and  even  decline  to  pry  into  the  tech- 
nique of  this  picture  we  might  find  something  in 
the  subject  worthy  of  admiration.  Look  at  it 
merely  for  the  portrait  of  a  pretty  little  Dutch 
child  in  picturesque  costume  with  a  parrot  on  her 
finger,  and  how  very  charming  as  well  as  true  to 
Dutch  life  it  becomes!  In  spirit,  not  technique, 
it  is  comparable  to  the  children's  portraits  by  Velas- 
quez at  Vienna. 

916.  Mieris,  Frans  van.  Breakfasting.  It  is  very 
accurately  drawn  and  rather  good  in  colour  but 
the  surface  is  too  porcelain-like.  It  has  no  breadth 
of  beam  either  mentally  or  technically.  No.  915 
is  no  better. 

401.  Morales,  Luis  de.  Mater  Dolorosa.  This  is  a 
fair  illustration  of  Morales's  rather  lachrymose  art, 
which  extends  to  the  attenuation  of  the  face,  fig- 
ure, and  hands.  If  you  will  study  these  features 
in  connection  with  the  II  Greco  (No.  1962)  you  will 
discover  a  possible  influence  of  Morales  on  II  Greco. 
Another  version  of  this  picture  in  the  Madrid  Gal- 
lery. See  also  here  No.  400  for  similar  sentiment, 
drawing,  and  colour. 

113.  Moretto  da  Brescia.  Faith.  With  just  a  shade 
of  affectation  perceptible  about  it,  not  only  in 
the   head   but   in   the  hands.     It  is  a  little  too 


MORONI,  GIOVANNI  BATTISTA  47 

ecstatic  to  be  true.  The  drawing  is  now  hurt  by 
repainting,  but  perhaps  the  hands  were  always  a 
little  pulpy  and  the  right  arm  rather  badly  done. 
The  colour  is  excellent,  the  flowers  very  good,  and 
the  mountain  landscape  quite  in  Moretto's  usual 
vein.  The  silver  tone  or  envelope  peculiar  to  this 
painter  is  apparent.  The  picture  formerly  passed 
as  a  Bordone  and  then  as  a  Palma. 

114.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     The  tone  of  this  portrait 

is  like  Moretto's  work,  though  the  head  might  have 
been  done  by,  say,  Moroni.  Originally  it  passed 
as  a  Calcar,  Waagen  gave  it  to  Moretto,  Dr.  Bode 
thinks  it  a  Bordone,  the  catalogue  queries  it — so  the 
student  has  a  wide  range  in  the  choice  of  the 
painter.  The  left  hand  is  well  drawn.  The  cur- 
tain at  the  right  and  the  background  of  the  figure 
have,  perhaps,  been  repainted. 

480  1  Moro,  Antonio.     Sir  Thomas  and  Lady  Gresham. 

481  J  The  man's  portrait  is  the  better  done.     It  is  in 

Moro's  exact  style,  with  some  hardness  of  drawing 
and  undue  length  of  arm,  but,  generally  speaking,  it 
is  accurate  if  precise.  The  woman's  portrait  is  not 
so  satisfactory. 

482.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     This  portrait  is  hung  in 

a  place  of  honour  on  the  wall  although  it  is  a  much 
weaker  performance  than  the  Sir  Thomas  Gresham 
(No.  480).  The  weakness  is  not  only  in  the  draw- 
ing of  the  face,  hands,  and  sleeve  but  in  the  colour 
scheme. 

154.    Moroni,  Giovanni  Battista.     Portrait  of  a  Man. 

It  is  not  an  important  portrait  whoever  painted  it. 
The  figure  is  badly  placed  on  the  canvas  and  is  not 
improved  in  any  way  by  the  parapet  with  its  letter- 


48  THE  HERMITAGE 

ing.  It  is  common  enough  work  though  once 
thought  to  be  a  portrait  of  Aretino,  done  by  Titian. 
The  present  attribution  is  questionable. 

371.  Murillo,  Bartolome  Esteban.  Immaculate  Con- 
ception.  This  is  one  of  the  many  versions  of  this 
subject  painted  by  Murillo.  In  some  respects  it 
seems  better  than  the  Soult  picture  in  the  Louvre. 
They  were  both  considered  wonderful  at  one  time, 
but  there  is  a  more  modest  estimate  made  of  them 
at  the  present  day.  They  are  too  loose  in  draw- 
ing, and  too  ecstatic  in  sentiment. 

367.    The  Repose  in  Egypt,     It  is  probably  as  good 

a  Murillo  as  there  is  in  this  gallery  without  being 
a  great  picture  in  either  thought  or  technique. 
The  Madonna  is  pretty,  sweet,  and  soft  in  model- 
ling, the  drawing  of  the  Child  leaves  something 
to  be  desired,  the  Joseph  is  questionable,  and  the 
landscape  is  vapoury.  It  needs  to  be  repeated 
that  Murillo  is  not,  and  never  was,  a  great  master. 

373.    Vision  of  St,  Anthony  of  Padua,     It  is  a  ver- 
sion of  the  picture  in  the  cathedral  of  Seville — 
possibly   a  school   copy.     The   Seville   picture   is        j 
vastly  more  impressive  because  of  its  size  and  its 
excellent  setting. 

372.    Deliverance    of  St.    Peter.      The    drawing    is 

rambling  (notice  the  arms  and  hands  of  the  angel), 
but  the  handling  is  rather  facile  for  Murillo.  It  is 
a  very  good  example  of  his  art  and  yet  has  little 
distinction  about  it.  Notice  the  cheapness  and 
the  vulgarity  of  the  colouring  or  the  questionable 
quality  of  the  light  and  the  shadow. 

379.   St,  John  Baptist.     This  will  be  regarded  by 

some  visitors  as  the  masterpiece  of  the  gallery  but 


OSTADE,  ADRIAEN  VAN  49 

it  IS  a  poor,  dinner-pIate  performance.  Its  weak- 
ness is  pathetic  and  its  sentiment  is  something 
worse.  If  you  do  not  agree,  try  to  find  some  good 
drawing  or  some  good  colour  in  it.  The  shadows 
are  more  or  less  pot-black,  the  clouds  are  smoke, 
and  the  light,  such  as  it  is,  comes  from  St.  John 
and  the  sheep  rather  than  the  sky.  The  cata- 
logue has  the  candour  to  say  that  the  picture  is  a 
copy  of  the  one  in  the  National  Gallery,  London. 

1117.  Neer,  Aart  van  der.  Holland  Landscape.  With 
a  wide  sweep  of  land  and  sky.  The  light  back  of 
the  windmill  is  penetrating.  The  picture  is  almost 
like  a  Hercules  Seghers  though  a  little  sharper  in 
its  drawing  than  Seghers's  work. 

474.    Orley,  Bernard  van.     Descent  from  Cross.    The 

figures  seem  fairly  well  drawn  though  some  of  the 
heads  do  not  fit  the  bodies  any  too  well.  The 
robe  of  the  Magdalen  is  handsome,  but  her  head 
and  figure  are  twisted  too  much.  The  colour  is 
that  of  a  late  Fleming  following  Italy.  A  fairly 
good  landscape  is  shown.  The  panel  probably  be- 
longed to  an  altar-piece,  and  may  be  by  Van  Orley, 
though  it  seems  a  bit  hard  for  him.  It  was  for- 
merly attributed  to  Lucas  van  Leyden,  and  then  to 
Dlirer.     Much  injured. 

1839.    Christ  on  the  Mount.     There  is  some  good 

rock  drawing  shown  here,  several  highly  coloured 
robes,  and  some  sentiment  of  a  mediocre  quality. 
Just  why  it  should  be  put  down  to  Van  Orley  is 
not  apparent.  It  is  not  a  wonderful  work  whoever 
did  it. 
952.  Ostade,  Adriaen  van.  Interior  with  Figures. 
A  very  good  piece  of  painting  showing  a  well- 
lighted  interior,  with  an  atmospheric  envelope  and 


50  THE  HERMITAGE 

excellent  colour.  No.  1767  is,  perhaps,  less  inter- 
esting but  is  worth  looking  up. 

948.  Woman  at  Window,  A  fine  bit  of  fat  paint- 
ing. And  what  rich  colour!  At  their  best,  what 
excellent  painters  these  so-called  "Little  Dutch- 
men"!   See  also  No.  954  though  it  has  less  quality. 

947  1  Musicians.     These  are  good  examples  of  Van 

949  J  Ostade's  drawing,  colour,  and  handling.  What  a 
technician  he  was!  How  skilful  with  his  fingers! 
He  was  no  great  thinker,  no  bearer  of  any  great 
message  to  mankind,  but  in  every  detail  of  crafts- 
manship what  a  past  master  he  was! 

962.    Ostade,  Isaac  van.     Landscape  with  Figures.     A 

typical  Isaac  van  Ostade  with  his  somewhat  spotty 
high  lights  seen  on  the  tree  trunks  at  left  and  the 
weeds  at  right.  He  painted  quite  a  number  of 
Paul  Potters  in  common  with  Verbeecq,  or  rather 
their  pictures  were  sold  by  dealers  for  Potters  in 
the  bad  old  times  of  the  seventeenth  and  eigh- 
teenth centuries. 

165.  Palma  Vecchio.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  The  atti- 
tude, the  figure,  the  hand  and  glove  are  Palma's, 
or  at  least  very  like  him,  but  the  drawing  is  hard 
in  the  head,  eyes,  and  nose,  the  hair  is  crudely 
done,  and  the  surface  is  not  attractive.  It  has 
probably  suffered  much  from  repainting.  The  cat- 
alogue queries  the  attribution  but  does  not  put 
the  picture  back  in  the  Venetian  School  where 
it  was  originally.  No.  91,  put  down  to  Palma's 
following,  is  badly  injured  and  probably  never  was 
of  much  importance. 

7.    Perugino,    Pietro.     Portrait    of    a    Man.     This 
looks  a  little  like  a  Perugino  but  the  colour  and 


PIOMBO,  SEBASTIANO  DEL  51 

the  eyes  are  suggestive  of  Costa.  Formerly  it  was 
listed  as  belonging  to  the  School  of  Perugino,  but 
it  has  been  promoted  for  some  unknown  reason. 
It  is  a  handsome  portrait  with  some  seriousness  in 
the  mood. 

1938.   St.  Sebastian,    The  repainting  of  the  face  and 

neck  has  ruined  the  foreshortening  of  the  jaw  and 
made  it  heavy.  The  signature  is  too  prominent  to 
inspire  confidence.  Perugino  would  hardly  have 
had  such  bad  taste.  The  picture  is  a  version — 
perhaps  merely  a  copy — of  the  upper  part  of  the 
St  Sebastian  in  the  Louvre  (No.  1566a).  The  ar- 
row and  the  signature  may  be  later  additions. 

29.  Piero  di  Cosimo.  Holy  Family.  It  is  a  version 
of  the  Piero  in  the  Borghese  Gallery  (No.  343)  as 
the  catalogue  suggests.  The  landscape  at  back 
with  the  sea  and  sky  is  characteristic  of  Piero,  as 
also  the  cattle.  It  is  handsome  in  colour  and  good 
in  the  robes  though  it  may  be  only  a  varied  copy. 
Notice  the  red  of  the  Madonna's  robe.  The  fig- 
ures fill  the  space  well. 

18.  Piombo,  Sebastiano  deL  Descent  from  the 
Cross.  This  is  an  important  Sebastiano;  in  fact, 
one  of  his  very  best  figure  pieces.  The  composition 
is  a  little  unusual.  The  eye  is  led  from  the  out- 
stretched figure  of  Christ  back  to  the  Madonna 
and  thence  by  the  arm  of  the  apostle  over  to  the 
tomb  at  the  right.  This  arrangement  fills  the  fore- 
ground with  figures  cast  in  the  form  of  a  loose  oval. 
The  upper  part  of  the  picture  is  given  over  to  a 
wonderful  landscape  under  a  lurid  sky.  The  ac- 
tion is  dramatic,  the  feeling  tragic,  and  yet  there  is 
nothing  uneasy  or  restless  about  the  composition 
or  the  figures.     The  action,  types,  draperies  are 


* 


62  THE  HERMITAGE 

suggestive  of  the  influence  of  Michelangelo.  This 
is  noticeable  in  the  Madonna  and  in  the  figure 
prying  off  the  cover  of  the  tomb.  The  figure  of 
Christ,  and  especially  the  face  of  the  Magdalen, 
are  Giorgionesque.  Again  one  feels  in  the  robes 
and  faces  at  the  left  some  suggestion  of  Raphael. 
Sebastiano  blended  them  all  together  to  make  a 
strong  amalgam  of  his  own.  How  fine  the  figure 
of  the  kneeling  Magdalen  and  the  collapsed  figure 
of  Christ!  The  Madonna  may  be  a  bit  academic, 
but  the  figure  is  not  the  less  excellent  of  its  kind. 
All  of  the  figures  seem  slighter  than  those  in 
the  Raising  of  Lazarus  in  the  National  Gallery, 
London  (No.  1),  and  the  colour  is,  perhaps,  less 
pronounced  in  depth.  The  blue  here  is  somewhat 
crude  and  the  other  colours  too  dark  to  correspond 
with  the  high  key  of  the  white  sheet.  It  is,  how- 
ever, a  notable  picture. 

17.  Christ  Bearing  the  Cross.  It  is  a  large  ver- 
sion or  variation  of  the  Madrid  picture  (No.  345). 
There  is  no  certainty  about  the  painter  of  either 
of  them,  but  they  are,  at  any  rate,  nearer  to  Sebas- 
tiano than  any  other  painter  in  sight.  This  ex- 
ample suggests  the  influence  of  Michelangelo  in  the 
muscular  strain  of  it  and  is  Giorgionesque  in  its 
shadows.  It  is  apparently  a  blend  of  Roman  and 
Venetian  methods. 

19.    Portrait  of  Cardinal  Pole,     There  is  SO  much 

*  of  Roman  method  about  this  portrait  that,  natu- 
rally enough,  it  was  long  supposed  to  be  by  Raph- 
ael. It  is  drawn  in  a  large,  Raphaelesque  way,  as 
you  may  see  by  looking  at  the  hands  or  the  costume. 
Even  the  washed  out  high  lights  are  Raphaelesque. 
The  beard  now  melts  into  the  robe,  as  the  possible 


POTTER,  PAULUS  53 

result  of  repainting,  and  the  colour  is  not  very 
good;  but  this  is  a  strong  portrait,  nevertheless. 
It  is  excellent  in  characterisation — a  manly,  posi- 
tive, forceful  type  that  commands  respect.  Excel- 
lent, too,  in  execution  for  all  its  following  of  the 
great  ones  at  Rome. 

120.    Pordenone  (Bernardo  Licinio).    Family  Group. 

The  work  shows  something  of  Titian,  Giorgione, 
Palma,  and,  as  usual  with  eclectic  or  assimila- 
tive art,  it  lacks  force.  There  is  nothing  wonder- 
ful about  it.  Formerly  attributed  to  the  painter's 
master,  Giovanni  Antonio  Pordenone. 

117.  Pordenone  (Giovanni  Antonio  Licinio).  Ap" 
pies  of  the  Hespertdes.  This  is  handsome  in  its 
decorative  quality,  has  an  excellent  landscape,  with 
good  colour  and  good  movement  in  the  figures.  It 
is  a  pendent  sketch  to  No.  118.  The  attribution 
of  both  of  them  is  doubtful. 

116.  The  Temptation.  The  picture,  for  no  spe- 
cific reason  that  can  be  named,  seems  reminiscent 
of  Palma.  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  thought  it  by 
Cariani — the  convenient  Cariani  who  acts  as  a 
clearing-house  for  so  many  questionable  Venetian 
pictures.  There  is  a  glimpse  of  a  patch  of  sky 
through  a  circular  window  at  the  right  that  is 
interesting. 

1056.    Potter,    Paulus.      Landscape    and    Cattle.     The 

picture  is  entirely  too  good  for  Potter.  No  authen- 
tic work  of  his  leads  one  to  think  that  he  ever 
reached  any  such  height  as  this  in  either  landscape 
or  figures.  The  landscape  here  is  excellent  in  the 
depth  of  the  woods  and  the  distance.  It  reminds 
one  somewhat  of  Camphuysen. 


54  THE  HERMITAGE 

1051.    Cattle   in   Landscape.     If   this   picture   IS   by 

Potter  then  he  must  be  credited  with  a  finer  sense 
of  light,  air,  and  colour  than  his  more  famous  pic- 
tures reveal.  The  picture  is  too  good  for  him. 
It  does  not  agree  with  pictures  by  Potter  in  the 
Dutch  galleries. 

1052.  A  Picture^Gallery.  The  interior  shows  a  se- 
ries of  hunting  pictures  on  the  wall,  most  of  them 
after  Paul  Potter's  works.  The  interior  itself  is 
put  down  to  Potter  but  is  by  a  cleverer  hand  than 
his.  The  pictures  on  the  wall  are  all  in  tone, 
which  was  something  that  Potter  could  hardly  pro- 
duce with  one  picture  to  say  nothing  of  a  dozen. 
The  copyist  here  was  a  better  painter  than  the 
master  he  copied. 

1055.   Wolfhound.    At  first  one  cannot  see  the  dog 

for  the  signature,  and  when  finally  he  comes  to 
contemplate  the  animal  he  finds  a  hard  silhouette 
against  a  hard  sky,  with  some  grey  paint  for  a  river 
and  a  landscape.  It  is  Potter  right  enough  but 
Potter  at  his  worst. 

1057.   The  Bull.     It  is  a  true  Potter  but  calls  for 

no  applause.  Camphuysen  and  Cuyp,  again  and 
again,  produced  better  cattle  pictures  without  ap- 
plause and  practically  without  the  notice  of  the 
world.  If  ever  admiration  in  art  was  mistakenly 
bestowed  it  was  in  the  case  of  Paul  Potter. 

1053.  Departure  for  the  Hunt.  Compare  this  pic- 
ture with  the  Potter  No.  1054  and  detect,  if  you 
can,  the  same  hand  at  work.  It  is  by  some  small 
Dutchman  painting  in  a  smooth,  glassy  manner 
after  Wouwerman.  He  was  a  better  painter  than 
Potter  and  his  name  was  possibly  Pieter  Verbeecq. 


PYNACKER,  ADAM  55 

1772.    Cattle   before    a   Shed.     The  drawing  of   the 

figure  and  the  flat,  white  cow  are  indicative  of 
Potter's  brush  as  well  as  the  Paris-green  high  lights 
on  the  foliage.  It  is  probably  a  genuine  Potter, 
but  if  it  were  labelled  Berchem  or  Du  Jardin  would 
any  one  stop  to  look  at  it? 

1400.  Poussin,  Nicolas.  Galatea's  Triumph.  It  will 
give  one  some  idea  of  Poussin's  good  drawing  and 
also  of  his  rather  tawdry  colouring.  It  is  a  follow- 
ing of  the  Roman  School  of  Giulio  Romano  but 
not  a  very  satisfactory  following.  Poussin  never 
possessed  much  sense  of  colour  and  even  his  line 
was  not  a  matter  so  much  of  personal  feeling  as 
of  academic  rule. 

1413.    Landscape  with  Classic  Figures.     It  has  some 

largeness  of  form,  but  is  drab-coloured  and  slate- 
like in  hue.  It  does  not  live  up  to  the  fine  Diogenes 
landscape  in  the  Louvre.  No.  1414,  with  a  very 
cold  blue  sky,  is,  perhaps,  of  the  same  quality.  In 
this  French  room  the  student  should  not  fail  to 
look  at  the  Watteaus  and  Lancrets.  They  do  not 
enter  into  our  present  scheme  of  Old  Masters. 
We  may  speak  of  them  hereafter,  but  while  the 
student  is  here  he  should  not  neglect  them. 

435.  Puga,  Antonio.  Knife^Grinder.  This  painter  is 
supposed  to  have  been  an  imitator  of  Velasquez. 
Few  of  his  pictures  are  known  under  his  name 
because  perhaps  they  are  masquerading  under  the 
name  of  Velasquez.  This  Knife-Grinder  is  a  follow- 
ing of  the  early  style  of  Velasquez.  It  is  coarsely 
done. 

1162.  Pynacker,  Adam.  River  View.  Look  at  the  lift 
of  the  sky  and  its  reflected  light  upon  the  water. 


56  THE  HERMITAGE 

It  is  not  a  wonderful  picture  nor  by  a  wonderful 
man,  but  at  least  it  is  worth  looking  at. 

1666.  Raphael  Sanzio.  The  Crucifixion.  This  is  a 
much-transferred,  much-restored  triptych  that  was 
originally  given  to  Perugino  and  later  assigned  to 
Raphael  for  insufficient  cause.  It  contains  many 
features  taken  from  Perugino,  such  as  the  figures 
of  St.  Jerome,  the  Christ  on  the  Cross,  the  Mag- 
dalen. The  whole  arrangement,  in  fact,  is  sugges- 
tive of  some  one  following  the  Perugino  in  S.  M. 
Maddalena  dei  Pazzi,  Florence.  But  a  coarseness 
and  harshness  in  the  figures  and  the  whole  land- 
scape background  with  its  rocks,  sea,  city,  and 
especially  the  lace-work  foliage  against  the  sky  are 
direct  denials  of  Perugino  and  also  of  Raphael. 
Neither  of  them  ever  did  such  foliage  or  made 
any  such  close-woven  pattern  in  the  background. 
They  were  devoted  to  revealing  space  at  the  back, 
whereas  the  painter  of  this  picture  is  intent  upon 
shutting  it  out.  It  is  the  work  of  some  Perugino 
imitator  who  sought  to  improve  on  the  master  by 
putting  in  more  detail  in  the  landscape  and  greater 
height  in  the  figures.  Raphael,  even  in  his  early 
work,  was  much  simpler  than  this  in  landscape, 
much  rounder  in  the  figures,  less  angular  in  the 
folds  of  his  drapery,  and  by  no  chance  so  hard  in 
his  line  or  so  airless  in  his  distance.  The  picture 
was  probably  painted  by  Amico  Aspertini.  See 
and  compare  closely  with  the  signed  Aspertini  at 
Berlin  (No.  118). 

39.  St.  George.  There  are  several  copies  and  ver- 
sions of  this  picture — the  largest  and  most  varied 
being  ascribed  to  Dosso  Dossi  in  the  Dresden  Gal- 
lery (No.  124).     The  name  of  Raphael  rather  than 


RAPHAEL  SANZIO  57 

the  interest  of  the  picture  has  made  it  famous. 
To  tell  the  truth,  it  has  very  little  interest  as  art. 
It  is  a  youthful  performance  whoever  did  it,  with 
a  juvenile  horse  and  dragon,  a  boyish  St.  George, 
and  some  well-painted  armour.  Perhaps  the  St. 
Sabra  at  the  right,  as  in  the  Louvre  St.  George  by 
Raphael,  is  the  most  interesting  part  of  the  picture. 
The  landscape  is  odd  even  for  an  early  Raphael  and 
the  foliage  of  the  trees  at  the  left  does  not  agree  with 
the  foliage  at  the  right.  Nor  does  the  horse  agree 
with  the  early  horses  of  Raphael  nor  the  dragon 
with  the  early  dragons  of  Raphael.  The  picture 
sheds  no  light  upon  Raphael,  because  he  probably 
never  did  it  despite  the  long  history  attached  to  it 
and  the  signature  on  the  harness  of  the  horse.  It 
belongs  nearer  to  Bologna  than  to  Umbria. 

1667.    Madonna  and  Child  {Madonna   Conestahile), 

There  is  an  interesting  history  connected  with  this 
picture  which  is  told  in  the  catalogue  note.  The 
history  is  really  more  interesting  than  the  picture 
itself.  It  is  a  very  slight  affair  and  of  no  great 
importance  as  art  no  matter  who  did  it.  The 
types  are  not  RaphaeFs,  nor  the  landscape,  nor  the 
draperies,  nor  the  drawing.  The  hands  of  the  Ma- 
donna are  badly  drawn,  which  is  not  unusual  in 
early  Raphaels,  but  this  is  not  the  bad  drawing  of 
Raphael;  and  the  bow  at  the  breast  is  thinly  done, 
which  is  again  not  unusual  in  early  Raphaels,  but 
this  is  not  the  thin  painting  of  Raphael.  It  is  an 
"  authentic '^  Raphael  and  generally  accepted  as 
by  him,  but  he  never  painted  it.  Transferred  to 
canvas  and  much  repainted.  There  are  several 
copies  of  it.     Look  at  the  good  frame. 

38.    Madonna,  Child,  and  St,  John  (Madonna  della 

Casa  d'Alba).     This  is  a  graceful   picture.     The 


* 


58  THE  HERMITAGE 

composition  is  excellent  and  the  figures  fill  the 
space  admirably.  The  drawing,  too,  is  right  if  a 
little  academic  in  the  repetitions  of  the  lines  of  the 
robe,  in  the  hand  of  the  Madonna,  in  the  pose  of 
the  Child.  The  group  is  well  knit  together,  but 
not  in  a  hard,  sculpturesque  way,  though  there 
is  some  apparent  influence  of  Michelangelo  here. 
There  is  a  large  freedom  about  the  figure  of  the 
Madonna  and  something  like  a  graceful  sprawl 
to  the  whole  group.  The  colour  is  cool  but  the 
blues  seem  to  be  well  placed,  and  the  blue  of  the 
sky  matches  that  of  the  robe.  As  for  the  landscape, 
it  is  spacious  enough,  but  not  very  Raphaelesque. 
On  the  contrary,  the  figures  are  Raphaelesque  with- 
out being  Raphael.  There  is  a  suspicion  of  Giulio 
Romano  in  the  colour  but  it  cannot  be  confirmed. 
But,  aside  from  who  painted  it,  the  picture  is  really 
very  good,  a  fine  composition,  and  the  best  of  the 
attributed  Raphaels  in  the  Hermitage.  Both  the 
face  and  the  figure  of  the  Madonna  have  been 
injured  and  the  whole  picture  has  been  much  re- 
stored. There  are  many  copies.  Read  the  cata- 
logue history  of  this  work.  It  has  had  an  event- 
ful career. 

40.    Portrait   of  an    Old  Man.     The   pose    of   the 

head  is  a  reminder  of  Raphael  but  the  rest  of  the 
portrait  comes  nearer  to  the  manner  of  Ridolfo 
Ghirlandajo  than  to  Raphael's.  There  can,  how- 
ever, be  little  certainty  about  a  surface  so  much 
restored  and  repainted  as  this.  Notice  the  hard 
outline,  the  wrecked  eyes,  nose,  and  mouth.  The 
original  painter  is  lost  under  many  repaintings. 

37.   Holy  Family.    Judging  by  the  St.  Joseph,  one 

might  think  that  Bacchiacca  had  been  at  work 


*** 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  59 

here,  though  the  head  and  hands  seem  too  well 
drawn  for  him.  The  Madonna's  figure  (notably 
in  the  bust,  arm,  and  hand)  is  decidedly  Raph- 
aelesque  though  the  knees  are  rather  bad.  The 
Child's  head  does  not  fit  his  body  any  too  well  and 
the  hip  appears  abnormal,  but  the  enlarged  hand 
is  again  Raphaelesque.  The  landscape  affords  no 
clew.  The  types,  colour,  composition,  and  drawing 
all  seem  a  little  unusual  for  Raphael  and  the  spirit 
of  it  is  not  his  at  all.  How  posed  the  Child!  How 
dull  the  Madonna!  How  commonplace  the  beard- 
less Joseph!  A  problematical  picture.  Much  re- 
painted. 

811.  Rembrandt  van  Ryn.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  The 
Rembrandts  at  the  Hermitage  (there  are  forty  or 
more  put  down  to  his  name)  are  the  same  miscel- 
laneous group  of  pictures,  representing  the  output 
of  the  Rembrandt  shop  and  much  of  the  school, 
that  one  sees  in  other  European  galleries.  Any- 
thing that  is  dark  in  shadows  and  violent  in  light  or 
everything  that  is  kneaded,  thumbed,  or  messed  in 
the  pigments  is  ascribed  to  Rembrandt,  until  we 
marvel  not  only  at  his  versatility  but  at  his  great 
unevenness  and  his  many  failures.  Could  a  great 
master,  such  as  Rembrandt  undoubtedly  was,  so 
blunder  in  twenty  different  styles  or  are  we  wit- 
nessing the  blunders  of  his  twenty  different  pupils? 
Again  the  question  must  be  asked:  What  has  be- 
come of  the  work  of  the  pupils?  Why  the  hun- 
dreds of  pictures  assigned  to  Rembrandt  and  only 
a  baker's  dozen  to  his  pupils?  Occasionally  one  sees 
a  Bol  or  a  Flinck  or  an  Eeckhout  rightly  attributed 
because,  perhaps,  the  pictures  are  too  weak  to  pass 
as  Rembrandts  even  with  the  uninitiated;  but  all 
the  first-class  Bols,  Flincks,  Eeckhouts,  Backers, 


60  THE  HERMITAGE 

Maeses,  Lievenses  were  long  ago  signed  up  and  sold 
as  Rembrandts.  The  reason  for  this  was  always 
obvious.  Galleries,  and  collectors  wanted  Rem- 
brandts, not  Flincks  and  Eeckhouts,  and  the 
obliging  dealers  of  yesteryear  (and  some  of  to-day) 
sold  them  the  pupil's  works  as  the  master's,  at 
enhanced  prices.  In  the  same  way  they  sold  Ver- 
beecqs  and  Isaac  van  Ostades  for  Paul  Potters, 
Verkolies  for  Terborchs,  Janssens  for  Pieter  de 
Hoochs,  Segherses  and  Van  Udens  for  Rubenses. 
Signatures  and  dates  were  changed  to  meet  the 
commercial  demand.  The  Rembrandt  signature 
is  to-day  found  on  pictures  that  no  one  pretends 
are  by  Rembrandt.  You  will  find  it,  for  instance, 
in  this  gallery  on  the  Bol  picture  No.  856.  The 
natural  result  of  such  forgery  and  misrepresentation 
is,  of  course,  confusion.  The  Rembrandt  pictures 
here  in  the  Hermitage  are  as  confused  as  in  other 
European  galleries,  and  all  that  we  can  do  is  to 
express  a  frank  opinion  on  each  picture,  postulat- 
ing its  authorship  as  nearly  as  possible  on  technical 
grounds.  Signatures,  tradition,  history,  the  names 
of  famous  owners,  the  belief  of  crowned  heads  are 
not  worth  a  sou  in  connection  with  these  pictures 
and  should  be  entirely  laid  aside.  The  technique 
of  each  picture  must  speak  for  itself. 

Now  if  Rembrandt  was  the  great  master  that  his- 
tory proclaims  him  (and  there  is  no  doubt  about  it), 
then  he  was  necessarily  a  great  technician  and 
thoroughly  understood  the  grammar  of  his  art. 
Every  master,  of  course,  occasionally  nods,  slips, 
or  is  careless  in  the  drawing  of,  say,  an  eye  or  a 
hand,  but  his  work,  as  a  whole,  will  be  grammatically 
sound.  A  Titian,  a  Rubens,  or  a  Rembrandt  will 
not  radically  differ  or  vary  in  his  technique  any 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  61 

more  than  a  Shakespeare,  a  Homer,  or  a  Goethe. 
The  theme  may  vary,  and  one  may  be  done  with 
more  enthusiasm  and  spirit  than  another,  be  more 
pleasing,  more  effective,  greater  in  content,  as  one 
Shakespearian  drama  may  go  beyond  another,  but 
the  grammar,  the  style,  the  handling  of  it  will  not 
essentially  vary.  No  great  master  has  half  a  dozen 
styles,  though  in  the  course  of  his  development  he 
may  show  several  manners.  The  man  who  paints 
in  half  a  dozen  styles  is  the  imitator.  The  imita- 
tions thrown  off  by  Rembrandt's  pupils  and  follow- 
ers are  the  very  things  that  produce  the  appalling 
jumble  of  Rembrandt  attributions  in  the  Euro- 
pean galleries.  They  not  only  confuse  the  young 
student  but  apparently  some  old  connoisseurs  and 
a  good  many  gallery  directors.  The  only  way  out 
of  this  maze  is,  as  we  have  already  suggested,  to 
judge  every  picture  by  its  grammar,  its  quality, 
and  its  spirit.  The  question  must  be  asked  anew 
before  every  so-called  Rembrandt  here  in  the  Her- 
mitage: Is  it  conceived,  seen,  drawn,  and  han- 
dled in  accordance  with  the  Rembrandt  standard? 
What  is  the  Rembrandt  standard?  Why,  the 
Lesson  in  Anatomy,  the  Night  Watch,  the  Five 
Syndics,  the  Saskia  and  the  Coppenol  at  Cassel, 
the  Manoah  at  Dresden — to  mention  only  a  few 
prominent  examples.  There  is  in  the  Hermitage 
one  portrait  that  belongs  among  his  most  notable 
achievements — the  Portrait  of  a  Man  (No.  811). 
We  must  use  it  here  as  a  criterion  of  Rembrandt's 
style  but  not  apply  it  too  strictly,  for  it  is  Rem- 
brandt at  his  best,  and  he  was  not  always  painting 
up  to  it.  All  the  so-called  Rembrandts  here  are 
below  it — far  below  it.  It  is  a  great  masterpiece. 
But  even  in  Rembrandt's  inferior  work  there  will 


62  THE  HERMITAGE 

be  an  echo  of  the  mind  and  hand  seen  in  this  por- 
trait, a  tang  of  the  spirit  and  loftiness  of  the  master. 
There  will  be  no  headlong  plunge  to  lower  levels, 
no  lapses  of  mind,  spirit,  and  hand,  all  three,  no 
complete  breakdown  or  even  violent  change  in 
view  or  method.  A  man  who  could  see  things  so 
largely,  do  them  so  boldly,  draw  and  paint  them 
so  broadly,  firmly,  soundly,  truly  as  this  portrait 
proclaims  would  not  be  likely  to  turn  about  the 
next  month  and  do  a  highly  niggled  portrait  in  the 
style  of  Gerard  Dou,  or  a  weak,  soft,  pumpkin-like 
head  in  the  style  of  Jan  Lievens,  or  a  pretty,  spotty, 
velvet-and-silk  costume  in  the  style  of  Koninck. 
Yet  these  latter  are  precisely  what  we  find  here 
in  the  Hermitage  catalogued  as  Rembrandts.  Let 
us  examine  them  beginning  with  the  best  Rem- 
brandt sometimes  called  the  Portrait  of  Sobieski 
(No.  811). 

The  great  breadth  of  this  so-called  Sobieski  por- 
trait is  one  of  the  first  .things  to  catch  the  eye. 
The  masses  of  light  and  dark  are  large,  not  finical 
or  fussy  or  petty  in  any  way.  There  is  nothing 
spotty  or  jumpy  or  glittering  about  it.  The  model 
has  been  seen  in  the  mass  and  in  relation  to  his 
envelope  and  light.  The  portrait  is  comparable  to 
those  in  the  early  Lesson  in  Anatomy  or  in  the 
late  Five  Syndics,  and,  while  not  precisely  like  them, 
it  agrees  with  them  perfectly.  The  setting  of  the 
portrait,  the  atmosphere  of  it,  is  absolutely  right 
in  every  respect.  Go  back  in  the  room  and  notice 
how  this  head  and  bust  set  in  and  have  air  about 
them.  The  tone  of  the  portrait  is  again  quite  ab- 
solute in  its  truth.  There  is  no  false  high  light  or 
colour  out  of  key  or  shadow  too  dark.  Nothing 
in  it  disturbs  you  or  jars  you.     It  is  all  in  perfect 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  63 

harmony.  As  for  the  drawing,  when  and  where 
did  you  ever  see  anything  done  with  the  astound- 
ing certainty  of  this,  ever  see  such  naturahstic,  abso- 
lutely sure  drawing  as  here?  Begin  with  the  draw- 
ing of  the  eyes  and  nose,  the  ponderous  mass  of 
the  face,  the  brutal  strength  of  the  mouth  and  chin, 
the  huge  welts  of  flesh  in  the  neck.  What  a  power- 
ful face  it  is!  And  what  a  figure!  Do  you  notice 
its  depth  through — the  indicated  bulk  of  it?  The 
hand  you  may  think  ill-drawn,  but  not  so.  It  is 
rightly  suggested  in  its  weight  and  mass,  belongs 
to  the  figure  perfectly,  and  was  wisely  subordinated 
to  the  head  as  regards  detail.  How  Rembrandt 
handled  his  brush — how  unerringly!  Do  you  no- 
tice how  he  brings  out  the  modelling  of  a  cheek, 
brushes  in  a  moustache,  touches  a  chain  or  pen- 
dant with  a  single  stroke,  accomplishing  things 
with  apparently  a  minimum  of  effort,  hitting  them 
the  first  time  and  not  returning  to  fumble  them? 
Look  at  the  cane  or  chain  or  fur.  Look  at  the 
texture  of  the  hat  melting  so  mysteriously  into  the 
background. 

The  portrait  belongs  to  Rembrandt's  grey-golden 
period  and  was  possibly  a  likeness  of  some  model 
used  by  all  the  members  of  his  school  and  mis- 
takenly supposed  to  be  a  likeness  of  Rembrandt's 
self.  It  is  the  same  face  that  one  sees  in  the  so- 
called  Rembrandt  portraits  scattered  so  thickly 
through  the  European  galleries.  But  how  far  and 
away  beyond  them  all  is  this  Hermitage  portrait! 
It  is  a  wonder  and  a  marvel  that  denies  and 
contradicts  three  quarters  of  the  attributed  Rem- 
brandts  in  this  gallery. 

812.   Portrait  of  a  Girl.     This  portrait  is  sometimes 

called  the  Jewish  Bride  and  again  has  been  known 


^ 


64  THE  HERMITAGE 

as  a  Saskia;  but  it  is  probably  only  a  modePs  head 
and  was  probably  done  by  a  Rembrandt  pupil  or 
follower  now  unknown.  It  is  a  very  good  portrait, 
is  well  drawn  though  a  little  hard  in  the  outline  and 
somewhat  brittle  in  the  flowers.  Decoratively  it 
is  excellent.  The  pale  green-and-grey  colour  holds 
together  well  and  the  tone  of  it  is  right  enough. 
The  picture  has  some  charm,  but  it  is  too  light  in 
spirit,  in  colour,  in  shadows,  in  handling  for  Rem- 
brandt. Compare  it  with  No.  811  and  you  will 
find  nothing  in  the  one  that  parallels  or  even  sug- 
gests the  other.  The  painter  of  it  probably  did 
the  Artemisia  (No.  2132)  in  Madrid  and  the  Head  of 
a  Young  Girl  in  the  Ridder  Collection  now  in  New 
York.  He  possibly  also  did  the  Samson  (No.  802) 
and  the  Proserpina  (No.  823)  at  Berlin.  The  use 
of  flowers  in  the  hair  suggests  a  following  of  Last- 
man. 

792.    Abraham's  Sacrifice.     This  is  said  to  be  the 

original  of  the  picture  in  the  Munich  Gallery  (No. 
332)  and  the  Munich  picture  is  said  to  be  a  pupil's 
copy  touched  up  by  Rembrandt's  own  hand.  But 
there  is  very  little  difference  between  the  pictures, 
and  neither  of  them  entirely  agrees  with  the  Rem- 
brandts  of  undisputed  genuineness.  Still,  there  is 
some  authority  of  document  and  tradition  for  this 
St.  Petersburg  picture.  It  is  a  pity  the  picture  it- 
self does  not  proclaim  Rembrandt  a  little  more 
positively.  The  pretty  surfaces  of  the  angel  do 
not  speak  for  him.  See  the  note  on  the  Munich 
picture. 

813.    Portrait  of  an  Oriental.     A  head  that  IS  dearly 

*      and  cleverly  done,  with  considerable  skill  of  draw- 
ing and  handling,  fairly  good  relief,  and  good  set- 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  65 

ting.  It  IS  just  such  a  head  as  Fllnck  occasionally 
did — especially  in  the  type  and  head-dress — but  it 
is  much  finer  and  stronger  than  the  portrait  heads 
usually  given  to  him.  If  a  Rembrandt,  and  the 
date  of  1636  is  correct,  then  it  comes  within  one 
year  of  the  so-called  Sobieski  (No.  811).  If  he  did 
it  at  that  time,  how  does  it  happen  to  be  so  much 
poorer  and  weaker  in  style?  And  how  did  he  manage 
to  change  his  style  again  so  violently  in  the  same 
year  (1636)  as  to  do  the  Samson  and  Delilah  at 
Frankfort  (No.  642)?  No  other  painter  in  history 
ever  did  or  could  change  so  radically  or  so  frequently 
as  this  versatile  creation  of  the  collectors  and  the 
dealers  miscalled  Rembrandt.  There  is  a  head  sim- 
ilar to  this  in  No.  813  in  the  Centurion  Cornelius 
picture  of  the  Wallace  Collection — a  picture  that 
lies  between  Flinck  and  Fabritius.  This  St.  Pe- 
tersburg portrait  was  probably  done  by  the  same 
hand  that  did  the  Wallace  Collection  picture. 

843.    Portrait.    The  painter  of  this  portrait  did  a 

smaller  but  similar  head  of  a  boy  now  in  the  Wal- 
lace Collection  (No.  201),  there  ascribed  to  Rem- 
brandt. The  same  head  with  similar  painting 
appears  again  in  the  picture  No.  1634  in  the 
Amsterdam  Museum,  now  ascribed  to  Moeyaert 
as  formerly  to  Hoogstraaten.  None  of  the  pictures 
is  badly  done,  but  the  point  is  that  none  of  them 
has  anything  in  common  with  Rembrandt's  mind 
or  hand.  Notice,  if  you  please,  how  different  is 
this  porcelain  face  from  every  other  face  in  the  gal- 
lery put  down  to  Rembrandt.  Not  one  of  the  forty 
so-called  Rembrandts  tallies  with  it. 

802.    Danae.    This   is   a  very  well-known   picture 

**      and  by  no  means  a  poor  one.     It  is  decidedly  good 


66  THE  HERMITAGE 

in  the  figure  though  there  are  lapses  in  the  draw- 
ing and  some  hardness  in  the  modelling.  There  is 
also  sharpness  in  the  outlines  as  you  may  see  in 
the  nose.  The  ornaments  of  the  couch,  the  ara- 
besque of  glittering  gold  that  frames  the  picture 
are  over-done  and  in  rather  poor  taste.  One  fails 
to  see  Rembrandt  in  this  glitter,  or  in  the  nude  fig- 
tire,  or  in  the  old  woman  at  the  back,  or  in  the  gilt 
cupid.  Moreover,  the  colour  and  light  are  too 
mouldy  and  lacking  in  depth  and  clarity  for  him. 
If  you  take  the  light,  colour,  drawing,  and  handling 
back  to  the  Manoah  at  Dresden,  or  the  Saskia  at 
Cassel,  or  even  the  so-called  Sobieski  here  in  the 
Hermitage  you  will  find  them  in  disagreement. 
This  Danae  is  too  weak  for  them.  Again  there  is 
a  thinness  about  the  shadows  that  does  not  agree 
with  Rembrandt's  work.  There  is,  of  course,  con- 
siderable luminosity  in  the  flesh  and  a  decided  sense 
of  form  comparable  to  that  which  Eeckhout  dis- 
played in  his  bathing  women  attributed  to  Rem- 
brandt in  the  Louvre,  the  National  Gallery,  and 
at  Berlin.  The  picture  is  more  like  Eeckhout  or 
Bol  than  Rembrandt  though  not  characteristic  of 
any  of  them.  It  agrees  better,  perhaps,  with  what 
we  know  about  Horst.  The  picture  would  better 
be  called  a  Rembrandt  school  piece  for  the  present. 
It  is  an  uncommonly  good  one,  which  may  account 
for  its  being  given  to  Rembrandt.  But  the  painter 
of  the  Night  Watch  and  the  Five  Syndics  never  did 
it.  See  the  note  on  the  Rembrandt  No.  791  in 
this  gallery,  a  work  possibly  by  the  same  hand  as 
shown  here. 

828.    Portrait   of  a    Young  Man,     This   portrait  IS 

hung  high  on  the  wall,  but  at  a  distance  it  has  the 
appearance  of  an  early  Rembrandt  though  smooth 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  67 

in  handling  and  not  too  forceful  in  modelling.  An 
early  Flinck  at  Amsterdam  (No.  926a)  suggests, 
however,  that  others  besides  Rembrandt  were  capa- 
ble of  doing  such  portraits  as  this. 

842.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     It  is  similar  to  No.  828 

but  not  so  good  in  the  shadow  on  the  collar,  which 
is  blackish.  They  may  be  early  Rembrandts  though 
a  bit  smooth  and  lacking  in  force  for  the  master. 
On  the  wall  they  are  hung  too  high  to  see  their 
handling  or  to  study  them  closely  in  any  particular. 

800.    Descent  from  the  Cross.     This  is  an  enlarged 

variant  of  the  picture  in  the  Munich  Gallery  (No. 
326)  and  was  probably  done  by  some  Rembrandt 
pupil  or  assistant.  It  is  darker,  less  luminous  than 
the  Munich  picture  and  has  harder  outlines.  The 
light  seems  sharper  and  more  artificial  than  is 
customary  with  Rembrandt. 

808.   Portrait  of  a  Writer.    This  bears  a  resemblance 

to  the  Coppenol  portrait  at  Cassel,  but  the  likeness 
is,  perhaps,  more  in  the  sitter  than  in  the  technique 
though  this  latter  attempts  to  follow  the  Cassel 
picture  closely.  Certain  features,  such  as  the  ruff 
in  its  lack  of  substance  and  the  hands  in  their 
laboured  drawing,  show  its  weakness.  Moreover, 
the  wonderful  modelling  in  the  forehead,  eyes, 
cheeks  of  the  Coppenol  is  not  so  forcefully  re- 
peated here.  But  this  portrait  is  very  near  to 
Rembrandt.  He  probably  had  something  to  do 
with  it,  may  have  painted  it,  and  afterward  been 
made  a  fool  of  by  restorers.  The  ruff,  the  high 
lights  on  the  sleeve,  the  table-cloth,  the  back- 
ground are  rather  ineffective  now.  Yet  the  pose 
and  look,  the  scheme  of  light  and  colour  are  very 
Rembrandtesque.      And    the   head,    while    frailer 


* 


68  THE  HERMITAGE 

than  the  Cassel  Coppenol,  is  fairly  well  done.  The 
portrait  must  be  accepted  as  a  Rembrandt  for  the 
present  though  it  may  prove  to  be  a  school  piece 
of  some  sort. 

824.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Man.     The  sitter  here  is 

*  the  same  individual  that  passes  elsewhere  as  Rem- 
brandt's brother,  and  Bol  painted  him  a  number  of 
times.  This  is  a  forceful  portrait — forceful  enough 
to  be  by  Rembrandt — and  possibly  he  did  it.  The 
hat  is  very  good  as  is  also  the  shadow  on  the  face. 
The  beard  from  the  ear  to  the  chin  has  been  fum- 
bled and  the  outline  of  the  cheek  is  uncertain,  but 
it  is  a  fairly  good  piece  of  work  all  told.  Rem- 
brandt could  have  done  it  without  being  too  proud 
of  it  or  yet  ashamed  of  it. 

814.    Rembrandt's    Father    in    Military    Costume* 

There  is  reason  for  thinking  this  an  excellent  ex- 
ample of  Gerard  Dou  in  his  early  Rembrandtesque 
manner,  before  he  grew  petty  in  detail,  hard  in 
modelling,  and  glassy  in  surface.  It  is  the  clever 
imitation  that  we  see  here  and  not  the  original. 
Notice  the  smallness  of  the  conception  and  (even 
now)  the  smoothness  of  the  manner  as  compared 
with  Rembrandt's  work.  Look  about  you  at  the 
so-called  Rembrandts,  compare  them  with  this  pic- 
ture, and  you  must  notice  the  differences  in  style, 
in  method,  in  handling,  if  not  in  mental  grasp. 
Practically  all  the  Dous  of  this  quality  and  this 
date,  or  earlier,  are  under  Rembrandt's  name. 
His  manner  when  he  became  smoother  (too  smooth 
to  pass  for  Rembrandt)  you  can  see  just  beginning 
in  the  Dou  here,  No.  1912.  At  Cassel  (No.  257) 
he  again  painted  this  alleged  Rembrandt's  father. 
The  model  was  older;  Dou  had  become  more  fussy 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  69 

and  his  surface  much  smoother.  The  picture  was 
assigned  to  Rembrandt  for  many  years  but  finally 
was  handed  back  to  Dou.  At  the  Amsterdam 
Gallery  there  is  a  copy  of  this  Hermitage  picture 
that  is  falsely  signed  with  the  name  of  Rembrandt 
according  to  the  Rijks  Museum  catalogue. 

796.    Holy  Family.    There  is  in  the  Louvre  a  small 

*  interior,  probably  done  by  Adriaen  van  Ostade 
(No.  2542),  and  in  the  Cassel  Gallery  another  in- 
terior (No.  240)  that  suggest  the  painter  of  this 
Hermitage  picture.  Rembrandt  never  did  any  of 
them  though  his  name  is  used  in  connection  with 
all  of  them.  He  had  little  sympathy  with  anything 
that  was  merely  pretty  or  catchy  or  sentimental. 
The  Madonna  here  (as  in  the  other  examples  re- 
ferred to)  is  too  fair,  the  motive  too  slight,  the  play 
too  superficial.  If  we  dismiss  the  name  of  Rem- 
brandt from  consideration  of  this  picture  it  re- 
mains to  be  said  that  here  is  a  fine  interior,  beauti- 
fully set  in  atmosphere,  and  very  handsome  in 
colour  and  light.  It  is  not  impossible  that  Adriaen 
van  Ostade  may  have  done  it,  though  it  must  be 
confessed  it  is  different  and  perhaps  better  than 
what  we  usually  associate  with  him  and  his  work. 
That  it  is  not  by  Rembrandt  is  almost  a  certainty. 
Whoever  did  it  produced  a  very  good  picture,  and, 
after  all,  that  is  the  main  consideration. 

798.  The  Workers  in  the  Vineyard.  This  little  pic- 
ture is  probably  by  the  painter  of  the  Philosophers 
in  Meditation  (Nos.  2540  and  2541)  in  the  Louvre. 
The  same  scheme  of  light  and  the  same  method  of 
treatment  are  apparent  here  as  there.  Some  fol- 
lower of  Rembrandt,  possibly  Koninck,  did  all 
three  of  them.     Notice  the  Koninck  interior  (No. 


70  THE  HERMITAGE 

864)  here  in  the  Hermitage  for  its  similarity  to  this 
picture. 

804.    Old  Woman  with  Book.     This  is  beheved  by 

one  of  Rembrandt's  biographers  to  be  Rembrandt's 
mother  and  the  book  in  her  lap  a  Bible.  From 
that  the  inference  is  drawn  that  she  was  a  pious 
woman  and  brought  Rembrandt  up  in  the  faith, 
which  accounts  for  his  painting  so  many  religious 
pictures.  This  is  biographical  history  as  it  is 
manufactured.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  portrait 
was  probably  painted  by  Nicolas  Maes  and  Rem- 
brandt never  saw  it.  The  scheme  of  sharply 
forced  light,  the  dark  shadows,  the  red  at  the 
sleeves,  the  cramped  drawing  of  the  face  and 
hands  all  point  to  Maes.  It  is  a  very  good  por- 
trait. Indeed,  these  near-Rembrandts  are  very 
good  pictures  but  the  point  needs  continual  empha- 
sising that  they  are  not  Rembrandts.  See,  in  con- 
nection with  this  portrait,  the  same  model  by  the 
same  hand  in  No.  807. 

805.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Woman.     This  is  the  same 

sitter  as  in  Nos.  804,  806,  and  807.  It  was  probably 
not  Rembrandt's  mother  but  a  model  used  by  the 
whole  school.  Nos.  804  and  807  are  apparently 
closer  together  as  regards  their  painter  than  Nos. 
805  and  806.  The  last  two,  in  the  handling  of  the 
whites  and  reds,  suggest  Eeckhout,  whereas  the 
first  two  are  more  positively  like  Maes  than  any 
other  of  the  school.  They  are  all  effective  portraits 
though  dark  in  shadows  and  forced  in  the  high 
lights. 

806.   Portrait  of  an  Old  Woman.     Larger,  freer,  and 

coarser  in  the  handling  than  No.  807  and  incom- 
parably poorer  in  every  way  than  No.  811,  yet  still 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  71 

a  portrait  of  considerable  force  and  vigour  of  han- 
dling. It  comes  nearer  to  Eeckhout  than  any  other 
of  the  Rembrandt  School. 

807.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Woman.     Another  alleged 

portrait  of  Rembrandt's  mother  in  the  early  Rem- 
brandtesque  manner  of  Nicolas  Maes  and  prob- 
ably painted  by  him.  The  reds,  the  dark,  blackish 
shadows,  the  drawing,  and  the  hesitating  handling 
are  all  indicative  of  Maes  but  not  at  all  indicative 
of  Rembrandt.     See  No.  804  by  the  same  hand. 

826.  Young  Girl  with  a  Broom.  The  girl  is  lean- 
ing over  a  fence  near  a  well  in  the  foreground. 
How  very  foreign  to  the  serious  mind  of  Rembrandt 
is  such  a  subject,  to  start  with!  But  it  comports 
precisely  with  the  rather  trifling  mind  of  Eeckhout. 
It  is  Eeckhout  as  we  know  him  in  the  Old  Man  with 
a  Red  Cap  (No.  828j)  in  the  Berlin  Gallery.  Not 
only  is  it  Eeckhout  mentally  but  it  is  Eeckhout 
technically.  Here  is  Rembrandt's  scheme  of  light- 
and-shade  pushed  to  an  extreme  and  become  black- 
ish; here  is  his  drawing  become  uncertain;  here  is 
his  handling  exaggerated  in  breadth  and  lacking  in 
effect  through  hasty  facility.  The  exaggerator  is 
Eeckhout. 

1777.   David  and  Absalom.   The  method  and  manner 

of  Rembrandt  are  here  prettified  and  sweetened 
for  popular  consumption  by  some  facile  pupil  who 
gauged  public  opinion  better  than  his  master. 
Stand  back  and  see  how  really  pretty  it  is.  Close 
to  view  it  is  uncertain  in  the  drawing  of  the  turban, 
the  face,  the  hands.  The  near  figure  wants  in  re- 
lief of  the  head  and  shoulders,  and  the  legs  are 
badly  drawn.  The  handling  is  free  enough  but 
thin  and  a  little  weak.     The  picture  was  painted 


72  THE  HERMITAGE 

by  the  same  hand  that  did  the  Minerva  (No.  828c) 
at  Beriin — that  is,  probably  Koninck.  See  the 
Konincks  here,  No.  837,  and  at  Amsterdam,  No. 
1375,  for  resemblances. 

820.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  Sometimes  called  the  por- 
trait of  Menasseh  ben  Israel  and  a  very  good  pic- 
ture, but  not  by  Rembrandt.  The  drawing  is  too 
heavy,  the  shadows  too  dark,  the  envelope  too  un- 
certain. Notice  the  drawling  of  the  eyes  and  nose, 
the  messy  painting  of  the  beard,  the  uncertain 
background.  It  is  a  near-Rembrandt,  a  school 
piece  only.  The  painter  of  it  did  also  No.  2539  in 
the  National  Gallery,  London. 

809.   Pallas  Athena.     Look  closely  at  the  drawing 

in  this  head  of  Pallas  and  you  will  see  that  it  is  the 
work  of  a  clumsy  and  unskilled  brush.  The  hel- 
met is  askew,  the  plumes  are  not  drawn,  the  armour 
on  the  shoulder  is  not  rightly  modelled,  and  its 
high  lights  are  not  rightly  placed.  The  handling 
is  free  and  slashing  but  ineffective ;  the  background 
has  no  depth ;  the  foreground  low  down  has  an  arch 
of  mere  paint  which  presumably  was  meant  for 
the  shield  of  Pallas.  After  you  have  looked  at 
this  picture  long  enough  to  convince  yourself  of 
its  inadequacy,  go  at  once  to  the  so-called  Sobieski 
portrait  (No.  811)  and  see  if  you  can  find  any  like- 
ness between  the  ignorance  and  vagueness  of  the 
one  and  the  knowledge  and  absolute  certainty  of 
the  other.  This  Pallas  has  every  appearance  of 
being  a  poor  start,  something  left  unfinished,  by 
Aert  de  Gelder.     It  is  a  muddy  performance. 

818.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Man.     A  fine  head  though  a 

*      little  soft  in  modelling.     The   hands    are   rather 
lumpy  and  pumpkin-like  in  texture,  the  figure  is 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  73 

guessed  at,  and  the  chair  is  lost  in  the  foggy  back- 
ground. Perhaps  the  weakness  of  the  figure  causes 
the  head  to  protrude  and  push  forward.  Notice 
the  scrappy  httle  cap  on  the  head,  and  also  the  good 
colour  of  the  portrait.  The  painter  of  this  portrait 
also  did  the  Head  of  a  Turk  at  Munich  (No.  325), 
the  Old  Man  (No.  1600)  at  Dresden,  put  down  to 
Flinck,  and  also  the  Amsterdam  Flinck  (No.  919). 
For  the  present  this  Hermitage  portrait  may  be 
called  a  Flinck,  too. 

795.    Fall   of   Haman.     A  fairly  good  picture  but 

with  some  queer  modelling  in  the  foremost  figure 
and  rather  badly  drawn  hands.  The  figures  at  the 
back  are,  perhaps,  out  of  scale,  but  not  out  of 
value.  The  background  is  dense  and  dark.  The 
painting  of  the  turban,  the  high  lights  on  the  nose, 
the  types,  the  illumination  all  point  to  the  painter 
of  the  Centurion  Cornelius  in  the  Wallace  Collec- 
tion (No.  86)  and  allied  pictures,  including  No. 
813  here  in  the  Hermitage.  It  is  by  Flinck  or 
Fabritius. 

794.    Joseph    Accused    by    Potiphar's     Wife.      The 

same  subject,  types,  and  general  treatment  appear 
again  in  the  Berlin  Gallery  picture  (No.  828h). 
The  forced  scheme  of  light,  the  clumsy  painting  of 
the  bed,  the  spotty  high  lights  on  the  costumes,  the 
badly  drawn  hands,  the  rambling  drawing  of  the 
figures,  the  handling  all  suggest  Eeckhout  in  his 
careless  manner.  When  he  chose  he  could  do 
better  work  than  this.  If  he  did  the  Bathing 
Women  in  the  Paris  (No.  2549)  and  London  (No. 
54)  galleries — and  it  is  possible — he  was  certainly 
a  draughtsman  of  considerable  skill  when  in  the 
mood. 


74  THE  HERMITAGE 

825.    Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.     This  IS  the  model 

that  sometimes  passes  as  Rembrandt's  son,  Titus. 
Bol  painted  this  type  a  number  of  times  with  varia- 
tions and  modifications  to  suit  the  characters  de- 
picted. Perhaps  the  Bol  portrait  here  (No.  850) 
is  the  same  model.  This  portrait  (No.  825)  is  a 
sketchy  performance  with  black  shadows  and 
black  ground — something  started  but  never  fin- 
ished. Its  rough  and  fumbled  surface  is  the  reason 
why  the  portrait  is  dated  1660  and  put  down  as  an 
old-age  Rembrandt.  It  is  not  Rembrandt's  work 
at  any  age  but  that  of  some  pupil  or  follower  whose 
name  we  are  unable  to  give. 

797.    Return  of  the  Prodigal  Son.     In  this  picture 

the  loose,  not  to  say  bad,  drawing,  the  uncertain 
colour  scheme,  the  ineffectual  handling  are  proofs 
positive  to  the  Rembrandt  experts  that  Rembrandt 
painted  the  picture  at  the  end  of  his  life  and  in 
the  year  of  his  death.  But  did  not  Rembrandt 
have  blundering  pupils  who  never  did  accurate 
work  at  any  time?  Was  Rembrandt  in  his  old  age 
the  only  blunderer  in  the  school?  Are  we  to  be- 
lieve this  picture  a  Rembrandt  because  it  is  bad 
and  has  in  addition  the  unusual  and  questionable 
signature  of  "R.  v.  Ryn"?  What  about  Aert  de 
Gelder  as  a  blunderer  and  a  possible  painter  of  the 
picture?  It  fits  him  as  exactly  as  it  misfits  Rem- 
brandt wholly  and  completely.  The  composition, 
with  one  group  falsely  prominent  in  light  and  an- 
other group  at  the  back  falsely  inconspicuous  in 
the  shadow,  is  a  marked  mannerism  of  Aert  de 
Gelder.  Whenever  he  used  two  or  more  figures 
in  different  planes  they  almost  always  failed  to 
hold  together  because  untrue  in  their  values. 
Again,  the  loose,  rambling  drawing  and  the  free 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  75 

but  ineffectual  handling  are  to  be  seen  in  almost 
all  of  his  work.  What  would  not  Rembrandt  have 
made  of  the  prodigal's  feet,  the  father's  hand,  the 
scheme  of  light,  the  mystery  of  shadow!  De 
Gelder  has  slurred  them  all  by  his  want  of  skill, 
his  inability  to  cope  with  a  picture  of  this  size. 
For  this  poor  work  notice  merely  one  feature — 
the  arch  of  the  door  with  the  vine  at  back  and  the 
badly  relieved  figure  near  it.  The  silver-grey  col- 
our with  terra-cottas  and  reds  is  again  a  colour 
mannerism  of  De  Gelder.  The  silver-greys  at  the 
wrists  and  elbows  of  the  father  are  positively  his, 
and  the  terra-cottas  are  to  be  found  everywhere 
in  his  pictures.  There  is  no  touch  of  Rembrandt 
here.  Moreover,  the  admiration  of  those  who 
think  it  a  Rembrandt  is  somewhat  ill  bestowed. 
It  is  not  a  great  picture — not  even  for  Aert  de 
Gelder.  As  for  the  possibility  of  its  being  by  Rem- 
brandt, think  of  it  in  connection  with  the  Night 
Watch  or  the  Syndics  or  the  Lesson  in  Anatomy, 
and  immediately  the  possibility  vanishes. 

799.   Peter's  Denial.     Look  at  the  figure  holding 

the  candle — at  the  false  shadow  on  the  face  and 
arms,  their  bad  drawing,  the  bad  hands.  Go 
directly  into  the  near  cabinet  and  compare  it  with 
the  face,  hands,  and  shadows  of  the  Danae  (No. 
802).  Do  you  think  the  same  hand  did  both  of 
them?  Then  have  a  look  at  the  so-called  Sobieski 
portrait  (No.  811).  Again,  do  you  think  the  same 
hand  did  all  three  of  them?  Compare  this  Peter's 
Denial  with  the  Prodigal  Son  (No.  797)  across  the 
room,  and  can  you  not  see  in  the  rambling  draw- 
ing, the  colour  scheme,  the  figures  at  the  back  the 
same  hand — the  hand  of  Aert  de  Gelder?  The 
figures  in  the  foreground  are  mixed  up  and  rather 


76  THE  HERMITAGE 

pasted  together;  in  the  background  they  are  out 
of  value.  This  picture  is  close  to  the  Prodigal 
Son  in  its  authorship  and  far  removed  from  Rem- 
brandt's work.  It  is  dated  1656,  but  in  1655  Rem- 
brandt did  the  Flayed  Ox  in  the  Louvre  (No. 
2548) — a  picture  that  is  as  absolute  in  its  mastery 
from  one  end  to  the  other  as  this  Peter's  Denial  is 
inadequate  and  ineffectual  from  one  end  to  the 
other.  Nos.  797,  799,  and  809  are  by  De  Gelder 
or  very  near  him.  They  are  supposed  to  be  Rem- 
brandts  because  black  and  messy  wanderings  with 
the  brush — in  other  words,  because  of  their  fail- 
ings rather  than  their  successes. 

823.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Lady.     A  very  good,  dark- 

*  shadowed  portrait  that  belongs  to  the  school  rather 
than  to  the  master.  It  comes  as  near  to  Maes  as 
any  painter  that  can  be  identified  by  name.  The 
reds  and  the  blackish  shadows  are  his.  It  is  care- 
fully drawn  and  painted — is,  in  fact,  good  enough 
for  Rembrandt  but  not  by  him  if  we  are  to  believe 
other  examples  by  him  such  as  the  so-called  So- 
bieski  portrait  or  the  portraits  at  Cassel. 

819.  Portrait  of  a  Young  Woman.  The  dark  shad- 
ows at  the  wrists  with  the  quality  of  the  red  and 
the  handling  of  the  whites  suggest  Maes  as  the 
possible  painter  here.  The  table-cloth  and  fruit  are 
also  like  him  but  the  hands  and  face  have  not  his 
cramped  drawing.  It  has  no  Rembrandt  quality 
and  is  only  a  fair  portrait.  Probably  some  pupil 
did  it  but  which  one  would  be  difficult  to  say. 

829.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Lady.     It  is  an  Elizabeth 

Bas  type  of  portrait  and  was  possibly  done  by 
Rembrandt,  though  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that 
Backer,  following  Rembrandt,  did  portraits  of  this 


* 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  77 

same  fine  quality,  notably  in  the  Berlin  Gallery 
(No.  1640)  and  at  Darmstadt.  Go  close  and  see 
how  smoothly  and  serenely  simple  it  is  in  handling, 
drawing,  light,  air,  setting.  It  is  smoother  than 
the  Elizabeth  Bas  at  Amsterdam,  smoother  than 
the  Backer  at  Berlin.  That  makes  one  feel  it  may 
not  be  a  Rembrandt  though  a  star  picture. 

817.    The  Toilet,    This  picture  is  sometimes  referred 

to  as  a  portrait  of  Saskia,  but  the  Saskias  are 
frequent  in  gallery  catalogues  and  (as  with  the  Hen- 
drickje  Stoffels  and  Titus  likenesses)  are  largely 
imaginary  with  the  catalogue  makers.  This  is 
only  a  model  posing  for  a  picture  and  is  a  work 
by  some  Rembrandt  pupil  or  follower.  Not  even 
the  most  rabid  believer  in  handing  over  every 
questionable  school  piece  to  the  master  can  sus- 
tain an  argument  for  this  picture  as  a  Rembrandt. 
It  is  a  charming  study  in  colour  and  light.  The 
head  is  well  done  and  the  whites  of  the  collar  and 
scarf  are  excellent  in  quality. 

833(?).    Portrait    of   a    Woman.     This    portrait    is 

*  probably  by  the  painter  of  No.  817  and  is  even 
finer,  better,  more  lovely  in  colour,  and  more  charm- 
ing in  spirit  than  that  picture.  It  is  quite  worthy 
of  Rembrandt  but  it  is  not  at  all  in  his  manner. 
How  very  different  it  is  from  the  so-called  Sobieski 
here,  or  the  Saskia  at  Cassel,  or  the  Manoah  at 
Dresden!  Painters — even  the  greatest  of  them- — 
do  not  vary  their  point  of  view,  their  manner,  their 
method  so  violently.  As  for  a  change  of  base  that 
would  enable  a  painter  to  do  a  picture  like  this 
and  then  at  a  later  date  paint  a  picture  like 
No.  792,  hanging  opposite,  it  would  seem  impos- 
sible. 


78  THE  HERMITAGE 

801.    The     Doubting     Thomas.     The     Rembrandt 

manner  is  more  apparent  here  than  the  Rembrandt 
hand  or  the  Rembrandt  mind.  It  is  too  smooth 
and  sHppery  with  the  brush  for  the  master,  too 
pretty  in  the  types,  a  Httle  too  affected  in  the  hands 
of  the  Christ.  Besides,  he  was  a  more  sober  and 
serious-minded  person  than  this  picture  discloses. 
It  is  by  some  pupil  or  follower  whose  name  can 
only  be  guessed  at. 

815.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Jew.     A  good  portrait — a 

*  very  good  portrait — done  securely,  forcefully,  freely, 
but  truly.  There  is  much  varnish  upon  the  sur- 
face and  a  glass  over  it  which  make  it  look  a  little 
different  from  the  other  Rembrandts  here.  Look 
closely  at  the  drawing  of  the  eyes,  nose,  mouth, 
and  the  painting  of  the  beard.  It  is  not  so  force- 
ful, so  heroic  in  spirit  and  in  method  as  the  so- 
called  Sobieski,  but  it  is  possibly  by  the  same  hand 
in  a  smoother  and  less  positive  manifestation. 
The  word  "possibly"  is  used  advisedly,  for  one 
cannot  be  too  certain  about  pictures  in  a  school 
where  there  were  so  many  very  talented  imitators 
and  followers.  Besides,  there  were  forerunners. 
There  is  a  general  look  about  this  picture  (to  say 
nothing  of  the  drawing  of  the  ear  and  eyelids)  that 
reminds  one  of  Lastman — the  master  of  Rem- 
brandt. 

822.  Hannah  and  Samuel.  Aside  from  poor  col- 
our, bad  drawing  in  the  hands  and  figure  of  the 
mother,  false  values  in  the  whites,  and  a  flat  back- 
ground, can  any  one  believe  Rembrandt  guilty  of 
the  trite  sentiment  here  shown?  He  was  a  pro- 
found emotionalist,  if  you  will,  but  never  a  senti- 
mentalist.    Nor  did  he  ever  paint  any  such  merely 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  79 

pretty  child  as  this.  Notice  how  the  figures  fall 
out  of  the  frame  for  want  of  atmospheric  setting — 
something  in  which  Rembrandt  was  a  past  master. 

1858.    The  Woman  of  Samaria.     As  a  Rembrandt  it 

is  a  palpable  absurdity.  It  has  the  black  shadows 
and  clumsy  drawing  of  No.  799,  and,  though  it  may 
not  be  by  Aert  de  Gelder,  the  figure  at  the  well  sug- 
gests him.  The  landscape,  however,  is  hardly  his. 
The  picture  is  some  sort  of  school  piece  by  a  painter 
unknown  to  us. 

827.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     Supposed  to  be  a  portrait 

of  Jeremias  Decker,  a  Dutch  poet.  It  is  hot  in  the 
face  and  heavy  in  the  handling.  These  failings 
probably  account  for  its  being  dated  1666  and  re- 
ferred to  Rembrandt's  last  manner.  It  is  doubtful 
if  he  did  it.  The  portrait  is  the  work  of  some  one 
in  the  school  trying  to  imitate  Rembrandt's  ease 
without  having  Rembrandt's  skill.  Again  go  back 
and  look  at  the  eyes  and  moustache  of  the  so-called 
Sobieski  and  see  how  they  compare  with  the  eyes 
and  moustache  here. 

791.    Abraham  Receiving  the  Visit  of  Angels.     This 

is  a  school  piece  of  considerable  merit  and  was 
probably  done  by  the  painter  of  the  Danae  (No. 
802)  in  another  cabinet.  Notice  the  hands  of  the 
angel  at  the  right,  how  like  in  transparency  they 
are  to  those  of  the  Danae.  The  handling  here  is 
spirited  and  easy  but  not  too  sure.  The  angel  with 
back  toward  us  is  flat  and  wants  in  modelling,  the 
faces  are  smooth  and  a  bit  pretty,  the  Abraham  is  a 
little  weak.  They  are  very  like  Bol  in  these  respects 
and  very  unlike  Rembrandt.  He  (Rembrandt)  dis- 
liked smooth  surfaces,  for  they  did  not  catch  suffi- 
cient light-and-shade  for  him.     He  did  not  believe 


80  THE  HERMITAGE 

in  the  beauty  of  the  pretty,  the  regular,  the  formal ; 
he  believed  in  the  beauty  of  the  ugly — as  the 
Germans  put  it.  He  cared  not  at  all  for  graceful 
outlines  or  prettily  turned  forms  and  faces;  on  the 
contrary,  he  liked  the  wrinkled  face  and  the  grace- 
less form  because  they  lent  themselves  readily  to 
realistic  modelling,  to  the  play  of  light-and-shade, 
to  effects  of  broken  colour.  But  his  pupils  and 
followers  were  all  inclined  to  smooth  out  his 
wrinkled  fronts  and  prettify  his  hard,  intensely 
human  verities.  The  result  was  just  such  pictures 
as  this  Abraham  Receiving  the  Visit  of  Angels — 
pictures  done  by  Bol,  Flinck,  Koninck,  and  others. 
Bol  did  the  same  subject  of  Abraham  in  the  Am- 
sterdam Gallery,  but  it  is  a  weaker  performance 
than  this.  We  cannot  place  this  Hermitage  pic- 
ture. It  lies  somewhere  between  Bol,  Flinck,  and 
Eeckhout  as  does  the  Danae. 

810.    Study  of  an  Old  Jew.     Rembrandt's  scheme 

of  light-and-shade  came  from  his  second  master, 
Lastman,  who  in  turn  derived  from  Caravaggio; 
but  Lastman  refined  upon  the  darkness  of  Cara- 
vaggio and  Rembrandt  greatly  refined  upon  Last- 
man  by  banishing  blackness  and  giving  wonder- 
ful luminosity  to  his  shadows.  With  Rembrandt's 
pupils — Eeckhout,  Fabritius,  Drost — a  reaction  set 
in  and  they  returned  to  the  Neapolitan  darkness 
of  Caravaggio.  They  exaggerated  Rembrandt's  ef- 
fects of  light  intensified  and  fortified  by  dark  to 
an  unwonted  degree.  This  Study  of  an  Old  Jew 
exemplifies  the  pupil's  exaggeration.  The  black- 
ness of  the  shadows,  the  whiteness  of  the  beard, 
the  squareness  of  the  hands  are  much  more  like 
Eeckhout  than  Rembrandt.  The  effect  is  forced. 
Given  an  eccentricity  or  a  mannerism  in  the  mas- 


ROMANINO,  IL  81 

ter,  and  the  pupils  can  always  be  relied  upon  to 
drive  it  into  the  last  ditch. 

793.    Joseph's  Bloody  Coat.     A  Rembrandt  school 

piece,  very  puzzling  as  regards  its  painter  but  cer- 
tainly not  by  Rembrandt.  The  heads  and  hands 
are  sufficient  in  their  denial  of  Rembrandt  though 
they  are  fairly  well  drawn.  The  colour  and  light 
are  not  his  but  again  they  are  fairly  effective. 
It  belongs  somewhere  in  the  school  and  was  pos- 
sibly painted  by  one  of  those  pupils  of  Rembrandt 
who  left  a  name  in  the  municipal  records  but  not 
a  single  picture  upon  any  gallery  wall. 

803.    Rembrandt,  School  of.     Grace  before  Meal.    In 

the  generous  distribution  of  school  pictures  to  Rem- 
brandt, why  did  the  management  of  the  Hermitage 
hesitate  about  giving  this  picture  to  him?  And  why 
not  give  him  No.  1907?  They  are  both  of  them 
just  as  good  as  work  put  down  without  reserva- 
tion to  the  master.  But  they  are  rightly  relegated 
to  the  school,  where  about  three  quarters  of  the 
so-called  Rembrandts  in  this  gallery  should  be 
placed. 

191.    Reni,     Guide.      Adolescence    of    the     Virgin.     A 

typical  Guido  in  spirit,  colour,  and  drawing.  No- 
tice the  soft  modelling  of  the  face  and  hands. 

333.    Ribera,  Jusefe  (Lo  Spagnoletto).     St.  Jerome. 

This  picture  is  in  Ribera's  usual  style — that  is,  with 
exaggerated  high  lights  and  dark  shadows  fol- 
lowing Caravaggio.  The  drawing  is  realistic  and 
forceful  and  the  colouring  is  good.  But  one  sel- 
dom grows  enthusiastic  over  Ribera. 

1916.    Romanino,  II  (Girolamo  Romani).     Madonna 
and  Child.     Here  is  a  picture  that  again  presents 


82  THE  HERMITAGE 

us  with  crossed  or  cocked  eyes — a  peculiar  earmark 
of  Romanino.  The  so-called  Giorgiones  at  Buda- 
pest (No.  145),  at  Dresden  (No.  186),  at  the  Uffizi 
Gallery  (Nos.  621  and  630)  all  have  the  same 
crossed  eyes,  the  same  bad  drawing,  the  same  care- 
less handling.  And  they  were  all  of  them  done  by 
Romanino  and  not  by  Giorgione.  Notice  in  this 
picture  the  Giorgionesque  hand.  And  the  very 
good  colour. 

58.  Romano,  Giulio.  The  Fomarina.  This  is  a 
hard  version  or  variation  of  the  Fornarina  portrait 
in  the  Barberini  Palace  in  Rome.  The  sitter  is 
supposed  to  have  been  the  model  and  the  mistress 
of  Raphael,  but  if  you  will  read  the  catalogue  note 
you  will  learn  that  she  has  been  supposed  to  be 
several  other  (historical)  characters.  The  portrait 
is  probably  not  by  Giulio. 

221  \  Rosa,  Salvatore.      Ulysses  and  Democritus.     Two 

222  /  pictures  that  are  excellent  in  decorative  quality. 

The  colour  echoes  Paolo  Veronese  though  darker. 
The  landscapes  are  harsh  in  the  clouds  and  skies, 
but  perhaps  such  features  as  these  give  force  to 
the  pictures.  They  are  certainly  of  much  excel- 
lence— excellent  not  only  for  Salvatore  but  for  any 
one. 

576.  Rubens,  Peter  Paul.  Portrait  of  Helene  Four-- 
*  ment.  A  full-length  portrait  of  Rubens's  wife  in  a 
silver-grey  tone,  somewhat  unusual  for  the  painter 
but  very  attractive,  refined,  even  distinguished  in 
its  colour.  The  flesh  agrees  with  the  costume 
and  is  silvery,  too.  The  painting  is  freely  done 
in  the  ruff,  hat,  and  feather  fan,  and  the  texture 
of  the  black  satin  dress  is  realistic.  The  figure 
stands  well,  has   beautifully  painted  hands,  and 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  83 

has  also  repose  and  a  well-bred  air.  Notice  how 
different  is  the  landscape  from  the  usual  work 
attributed  to  Rubens  but  possibly  done  by  Van 
Uden  or  Wildens.     A  fine  portrait. 

587.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     A  thinly,  sketchily  painted 

Rubens  but  very  well  indicated  in  the  drawing. 
Notice  the  roundness  of  the  head  as  a  result  of 
truthful  modelling — the  presence  of  the  third  di- 
mension.    There  is  a  grey  background. 

646.  An  Apostle  (?).  It  is  a  finished  sketch,  pos- 
sibly for  an  apostle,  and  was  probably  done  by 
Rubens  though  his  pupils  sometimes  put  forth 
such  work.  There  is  a  series  of  these  pupils' 
sketches  or  copies  at  the  Prado,  Madrid. 

588.  Portrait  of  Man  in  Fur  Cap.  This  is  prob- 
ably a  Rubens  school  piece.  It  has  not  the  cer- 
tainty of  drawing  or  handling  that  goes  with 
Rubens.  Notice  the  wooden  nose,  the  narrowness 
of  the  eyes,  the  vagueness  of  the  brush-work  in  the 
figure  and  costume. 

1784.    Madonna  and  Child.     This  is  another  school 

piece  of  no  great  merit.  Notice  the  bad  drawing 
of  the  Child's  arm  and  hand  or  the  hands  of  the 
Madonna.  It  has  a  prettiness  about  it  and  a  sen- 
timent that  are  not  Rubens's.  Nor  is  the  colour 
his.     It  has  not  his  quality. 

585.    A  Monk.    It  will  not  pass  muster  as  a  Rubens 

no  matter  how  it  may  be  labelled  or  catalogued.  It 
does  not  show  either  his  drawing  or  his  handling. 
Said  to  be  a  study  for  a  picture  at  Cologne  but  it 
is  more  likely  a  school  copy.  No.  584  is  of  about 
the  same  quality.  This  picture  (No.  585)  has  a 
false  frame  about  it  and  is  probably  a  fragment 


84  THE  HERMITAGE 

of  a  larger  work.  The  panel  has  been  cracked 
across  the  lower  part  of  the  head. 

535.    Abraham   Dismissing   Hagar.     This   IS   rather 

fine  in  colour  and  in  the  sky;  but  how  are  we  to 
account  for  the  badly  drawn  neck  and  its  bad 
placing  upon  the  shoulders  in  the  Hagar  or  the  pe- 
culiar right  arm  and  hand  of  the  Sarah?  Rubens 
was  an  impeccable  draughtsman.  Did  he  do  this 
w^ork  or  is  it  pupils'  work?  The  Abraham  is  Ru- 
bens's  model,  but  he  sat  for  the  pupils,  too. 

543.    Christ    in    the    House    of    Simon,     This    is    a 

Rubens  that  was  probably  turned  out  of  the  shop 
— the  work  of  pupils  and  assistants.  He  himself 
probably  "touched"  the  hair  of  the  Magdalen  and 
the  figure  of  the  Christ  but  no  more.  The  third 
head  to  the  right  of  the  Christ  suggests  Van  Dyck's 
hand.  The  same  head  is  assigned  to  Van  Dyck  in 
the  Berlin  Gallery  (No.  798f).  Notice  how  merely 
pretty  the  woman  at  the  back  carrying  the  basket. 
And  what  badly  drawn  arms  she  has!  The  best 
part  of  the  picture  is  the  kneeling  Magdalen. 

538.    Madonna  and  Child.     It  is   almost  certainly 

the  work  of  a  follower — some  one  like  Seghers.  It 
is  too  smoothly  and  prettily  done  for  Rubens,  lacks 
his  robustness,  has  not  his  strength  of  colour,  falls 
far  short  of  his  strength  in  characterisation. 

578.    Portrait   of  an  Old  Lady.     This  looks  like  a 

free  Flemish  copy  of  some  Dutch  portrait.  In 
type,  costume,  and  general  air  it  is  a  Dutchwoman 
by  some  one  like  Backer  but  it  is  Flemish  in  han- 
dling. The  same  painter  possibly  did  the  Ruts 
portrait  in  the  Morgan  Collection,  New  York,  there 
attributed  to  Rembrandt.     He  was  probably  some 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  85 

Flemish-influenced  Dutchman  whose  name  we  do 
not  know. 

595.    Landscape  with  Rainbow.     It  is  a  fairly  good 

landscape  but  not  necessarily  done  by  Rubens. 
The  drawing  of  the  figures  does  not  suggest  him. 
It  is  worth  while  saying  again  that  Rubens  did  not 
miss  his  drawing  whether  the  figures  were  great  or 
small  but  that  Wildens  and  Van  Uden  missed  it 
frequently.  One  or  the  other  of  them  probably 
painted  this  landscape.  Compare  it  with  the  land- 
scapes in  No.  549  or  No.  550  and  notice  the  differ- 
ence.    A  similar  landscape  in  the  Louvre. 

582.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     A  sketchily  done  portrait 

with  a  great  deal  of  skill  and  force  behind  the 
brush.  Look  at  the  splendid  modelling  and  texture 
of  the  hand,  the  firm  drawing  of  the  eyes,  nose,  and 
mouth.  If  you  wish  for  superb  brush-work,  done 
once  and  done  finally,  look  at  the  hair  in  this  por- 
trait. Rubens  did  every  stroke  in  it.  In  good 
condition. 

549.    Venus  and  Adonis.     It  is  by  Rubens's  own 

*  hand,  done  in  his  early  style,  with  red  shadows  in 
the  flesh  and  beautiful  flesh-notes  all  through  the 
picture.  The  figures  are  Flemish,  rather  large,  to 
be  sure,  but  rendered  absolutely  and  perfectly.  The 
colour  is  very  good  and  the  landscape  is  probably 
not  by  Wildens  but  by  Rubens  himself.  Look  at 
the  dogs,  for  they  are  as  well  drawn  as  the  figures. 
Almost  all  of  the  dogs  in  the  Rubens  school  pic- 
tures have  the  anatomies  of  sheep  or  pigs.  A 
smaller  version  at  Berlin  (No.  763b)  probably  done 
by  pupils  or  assistants  in  the  school. 

583.    Portrait  of  a   Young  Lady.      The  sitter  looks 

like  some  one  in  the  Fourment  family.     She  was 


86  THE  HERMITAGE 

evidently  a  beauty  and  Rubens  painted  her  beau- 
tifully, but,  unfortunately,  the  cleaning  room  has 
rubbed  away  a  modicum  of  that  beauty.  But  it 
remains  a  fine  portrait.  The  work  is  fairly  early 
and  the  scheme  of  colour  is  unusually  dark. 

579.    Lady  in  Waiting  to  the  Archduchess  Isabella^ 

*  What  a  lovely  type!  What  an  epitome  of  the 
eternal  womanly  is  in  this  fine  face!  The  eyes 
in  their  look  have  a  charm  and  an  irresistible 
appeal.  It  is  a  noble  face  but  full  of  sympathy, 
fine  feeling,  true  sentiment.  Where  now  are  your 
jibes  at  Rubens  as  the  painter  of  the  gross  and  the 
sensual!  Nothing  could  be  more  delicate,  more 
refined,  more  elevated  than  this.  It  is  superbly 
done  in  a  smooth,  flowing  pigment  that  seems 
drifted  in  rather  than  painted  in.  The  contours 
of  the  nose,  brows,  forehead,  cheeks  are  not  suf- 
fused with  shadows  as  in  Leonardo's  faces,  but 
they  are  just  as  rounded,  just  as  melting,  just  as 
perfect.  Go  close  and  look  at  the  ease  with  which 
the  work  is  done — the  master  craftsmanship  of  the 
most  accomplished  technician  in  the  history  of  art. 
Notice  the  brows,  the  hair,  the  pupils  of  the  eyes, 
even  the  touch  of  high  light  in  the  eyes  and  on  the 
tip  of  the  nose.  Notice  again  the  doing  of  the  ruff 
and  dress.  Then  stand  back  and  see  how  perfectly 
the  head  fits  into  the  ruff,  the  ruff  travels  around 
the  neck,  and  both  of  them  belong  to  the  figure 
below.  Finally,  will  you  notice  how  the  whole 
figure  stands  within  the  picture  frame  within  an 
envelope  of  atmosphere  and  shadowed  light?  A 
fine  portrait. 

550.    Bacchus.    This  is  a  picture  that  may  be  ob- 

*  jectionable  to  some  people  because  of  its  subject. 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  87 

One  would  hardly  care  for  it  as  a  drawing-room 
decoration.  It  is  gross,  riotous  in  its  flinging  to 
the  winds  of  all  restraint,  and  yet  superb  in  its 
very  abandon.  It  is  a  Bacchic  scene  in  spirit  as 
well  as  in  forms.  There  is  a  complete  let-go,  an 
apotheosis  of  intoxication.  That  may  not  please 
as  a  theme,  but,  granting  the  artist  the  privilege  of 
painting  what  theme  he  will,  we  cannot  here  criti- 
cise the  fulness  nor  the  adequacy  of  the  presenta- 
tion. This  is  the  Roman  Bacchus  plus  the  Flemish 
grossness  of  intoxication.  Decoratively  it  is  a  fine 
piece  of  colour  and  technically  is  right  in  almost 
every  respect.  The  figure  of  the  nymph  at  the 
back  is  a  trifle  frail  in  drawing,  as  though  some 
pupil  had  been  at  work  upon  it.  It  is  a  late  pic- 
ture. The  red  shadows  of  the  earlier  Venus  and 
Adonis  (No.  549)  have  here  given  place  to  the 
brown  shadows  which  Rubens  used  in  his  last 
manner.  Notice  the  landscape  for  its  breadth  and 
freedom.  These  landscapes  in  Rubens's  figure  pic- 
tures should  always  be  noticed,  for  they  are  con- 
tradictory of  so  many  landscapes  put  down  to 
Rubens  but  really  by  Wildens,  Van  Uden,  and 
others  of  his  pupils. 
55L  Bacchanal— March  of  Silenus.  A  sketchy  pic- 
ture of  Rubens's  early  period  and  apparently  all 
by  his  own  hand.  Again,  the  subject  does  not 
please,  is  not  attractive,  but  the  workmanship  is 
beyond  reproach.  The  bulk  and  body  of  the  fig- 
ures— their  tactile  values,  if  you  prefer  that  term 
— are  quite  perfect.  Notice  these  in  the  figure  at 
the  extreme  left.  This  figure  is  the  most  engaging 
of  the  group  and  is  wonderfully  fine  in  the  head, 
shoulders,  arm,  and  back.  What  perfect  drawing 
and  flesh  colour!     And  what  exquisite  modelling! 


^ 


88  THE  HERMITAGE 

The  beauty  and  delicacy  of  this  modelling  are  just 
as  fine,  just  as  complete  an  expression  in  art  as  the 
drawing  of  Raphael  or  the  colour  of  Paolo  Veronese. 
The  coarser  figures  lying  down  are  no  less  rightly 
drawn  and  modelled.  What  a  group  in  Its  sway- 
ing motion,  its  riotous  abandon!  And  how  well 
the  group  fills  the  canvas!  The  colour  is  excellent 
though  not  so  brilliant  as  Rubens  usually  gives. 
Notice  the  red  shadows  of  the  flesh,  the  breadth  of 
the  landscape,  and  the  atmospheric  envelope.  A 
fine  picture  in  spite  of  its  subject. 

594.  Landscape.  If  you  will  compare  this  land- 
scape with  that  of  No.  595  and  those  In  the  back- 
grounds of  Nos.  549  and  550  you  will  discover  two 
or  three  different  kinds  of  landscape,  done  by  two 
or  three  different  painters,  yet  all  put  down  under 
the  name  of  Rubens.  No.  549  in  its  background 
shows  Rubens  in  his  early  period  as  No.  550  does  in 
his  later  and  broader  style.  Nos.  594  and  595  do 
not  show  Rubens  at  all  but  were,  perhaps,  done  by 
Wildens  and  Van  Uden  or  some  other  follower  or 
assistant  of  the  master. 

591.  Le  Croc  en  Jambe.  This  Is  said  to  be  a  rep- 
lica, with  variations  by  Rubens,  of  the  picture  in 
the  Munich  Gallery  (No.  759);  but  the  drawing 
of  the  figures,  the  hands,  the  eyes,  the  noses  does 
not  disclose  the  master-hand  of  Rubens.  Notice 
the  handling  of  the  hair  in  both  the  nymph  and  the 
shepherd  and  compare  it  with  that  in  Nos.  549, 
579,  and  582.  The  work  Is  probably  an  old  copy. 
The  variations  do  not  prove  its  originality.  Copy- 
ists frequently  diverge  from  their  original  model  in 
the  same  way  that  engravers  take  liberties  with  their 
texts.     It  was  and  is  common-enough  practice. 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  89 

552.    Andromeda  and  Perseus.     This   IS   an  earlier 

version  of  the  same  subject  now  in  the  Berhn 
Gallery  (No.  785).  There  are  many  differences 
or  variations  in  the  pictures,  this  earlier  version 
being  closer  knit  together  in  its  composition  and 
more  excited  in  its  action.  The  types,  too,  are 
more  youthful,  less  ponderous,  more  graceful.  No- 
tice this  in  the  Andromeda  or  the  Genius  at  the 
top  with  the  crown  of  bays.  It  is  a  handsome 
piece  of  colour  and  is  freely  and  easily  handled. 
Rubens  may  have  done  all  of  it  unaided  by  pupils. 

554. Neptune  and  Cyhele  or  Tigris  and  Abundance, 

It  has  not  the  vim  or  snap,  the  force  or  skill  of 
Rubens.  The  drawing  is  soft  and  the  colour  lacks 
in  distinction.  It  is  a  decorative  piece  turned  out 
by  members  of  the  school,  probably  under  the 
direction  of  the  master.  But  it  is  good  as  decora- 
tion and  not  necessarily  bad  because  the  brush  of 
Rubens  cannot  be  seen  in  it. 

559  1  Philip  IV  and  Elizabeth  of  Bourbon.      They 

560  /  are  said  to  be  replicas  of  the  Munich  portraits,  but 

these  latter  are  themselves  probably  copies  and 
not  originals.  The  St.  Petersburg  portraits  are  cer- 
tainly copies  and  not  replicas.  A  replica,  strictly 
speaking,  is  a  repetition  by  the  master  himself.  A 
person  as  much  in  demand  as  Rubens  probably 
spent  no  time  in  copying  his  own  portraits  when  he 
had  a  studio  full  of  pupils  who  could  do  the  work 
in  a  manner  satisfactory  at  least  to  patrons. 

536.    Adoration  of  Magi.     This  is  merely  a  school 

piece  in  which  one  can,  perhaps,  see  the  hand  of 
Seghers  in  the  colour,  the  textures,  the  brush-work, 
and  the  surfaces. 


90  THE  HERMITAGE 

1785.    Caritas   Romana    (Cimon    and  Perus),     It   is 

another  version  (probably  a  school  copy)  of  a  pic- 
ture many  times  repeated  by  the  pupils  of  Rubens. 
One  can  see  the  repetition  or  the  reiteration  of  it 
at  Amsterdam  (No.  2066). 

546.    Descent    from    Cross.     Said    to    have    been 

painted  at  the  same  time  as  the  celebrated  Descent 
in  the  Antwerp  Cathedral.  It  seems  impossible. 
The  well-supported,  heavy-falling  figure  in  the 
Antwerp  picture  gives  place  in  this  Hermitage  pic- 
ture to  a  figure  that  does  not  fall  or  bear  down 
and  is  not  convincingly  supported  by  the  apostles 
and  holy  women.  Besides,  the  composition  is  bro- 
ken by  cross  lines  that  give  a  step-ladder  effect 
instead  of  the  rhythmical,  swinging  grouping  of 
Rubens  with  its  sense  of  action  and  life.  It  is  un- 
believable that  the  mind  of  Rubens  could  plan 
such  a  group  as  this.  The  handling  of  it  confirms 
one's  unbelief  about  it.  Notice,  for  instance,  the 
uncertain  quality  of  the  high  lights  in  the  Magda- 
len's robes.  Notice  also  the  forced  and  laboured 
drawing,  the  much-mixed  colour  of  those  robes. 
The  whole  picture  is  of  this  indifferent  quality 
and  leads  one  to  think  it  a  school  piece  and  not  a 
very  good  one  at  that. 

540.  Madonna  and  Child  Enthroned.  This  pic- 
ture is  hung  too  high  (1913)  for  one  to  feel  certain 
about  its  origin,  but  it  has  superficial  indications 
of  being  school  work. 

541.  Madonna,  Child,  and  Saints.  This  is  a  bril- 
liantly coloured  picture  with  suggestions  here  and 
there  (especially  in  the  Child  and  the  Magdalen) 
of  Rubens's  own  hand;  but  the  figures  at  the  sides 
are  less  well  done  and  seem  to  be  pupils'  work.    The 


RUISDAEL,  JACOB  VAN  91 

drawing  is  not  entirely  satisfactory  and  the  colour 
scheme  is  a  bit  spectacular  and  lacks  in  quality. 

563  ]  Sketches  for    the   Antwerp    Triumphal  Arch. 

564  J  These  sketches  by  Rubens  are  worthy  of  study  not 

only  for  their  beautiful  colour  but  their  excellent, 
sketchy  drawing.  Even  in  tentative  work  Rubens's 
drawing  is  almost  always  positively  indicated  or  at 
least  suggested.  There  are  half  a  dozen  sketches 
of  this  series. 

557.    Sketch  for  St.  Ildefonso  Altar-Piece.     This  is 

the  first  thought,  the  initial  conception  of  the 
splendid,  large  altar-piece  now  in  the  Vienna  Gal- 
lery. Rubens  varied  it,  changed  and  added  to  it 
very  much,  when  he  came  to  paint  the  large  picture. 
Notice  that  the  colour  is  much  subdued  in  the 
sketch.  All  of  Rubens's  sketches  are  less  brilliant 
than  his  finished  pictures. 

569  1  Sketches    for    the    Marie    de    Medicis    Series. 

570  /  These  sketches  are  interesting  not  only  as  colour 

but  because  of  their  variation  from  the  larger  fin- 
ished pictures  in  the  Louvre.  In  them  one  can 
trace  the  growth  of  pictorial  ideas  and  see  the 
artistic  reasons  for  the  numerous  changes.  They 
are  here  merely  pictorial  notes — suggestions  for 
composition  and  colour — but  very  enjoyable  notes, 

1145.  Ruisdael,  Jacob  van.  Landscape.  Again  the 
typical  convention  of  Ruisdael,  done  with  very 
little  light  and  a  parsimony  of  colour,  as  though 
Holland  were  the  one  country  on  earth  where  the 
sun  did  not  shine  and  colour  failed  to  appear  save 
in  drabs  and  cool  greys.  But,  of  course,  Ruisdael 
was  a  picture  maker  first  and  a  recorder  of  facts 
afterward,  and  he  made  very  good  decorative  pic- 
tures. 


92  THE  HERMITAGE 

24.  Sarto,  Andrea  del.  Holy  Family.  There  is  an- 
other version  of  this  picture  in  the  National  Gal- 
lery, London  (No.  17),  and  a  better  work  than  this. 
Both  versions  are  claimed  as  the  originals,  but 
neither  of  them  gives  us  an  adequate  idea  of  An- 
drea. They  are  slight  and  somewhat  perfunctory 
performances. 

257.  Sassoferrato,  II  (Giovanni  Battista  Salvi). 
Madonna  and  Child.  About  the  feeblest  and  most 
decadent  picture  in  a  room  filled  with  works  of 
the  Decadence.  But  the  public  has  always  loved 
Sassoferrato  and  much  admires  this  work.  Is  it 
for  its  dreadful  colour  or  its  bad  drawing  of  the 
right  arm  and  hand  or  its  sickly  sentimentality? 

121.    Schiavone,  II  (Andrea  Meldola).     Jupiter  and 

lo.  A  fine  landscape  and  reminiscent  of  the  large 
landscape  in  the  Louvre  put  down  to  Titian  (No. 
1587).  The  figures  are  graceful  and  decorative 
but  not  well  drawn.  According  to  the  catalogue 
only  the  figures  are  Schiavone 's  work,  the  land- 
scape being  credited  to  Domenico  Campagnola,  a 
Venetian  painter  and  engraver  of  the  first  half  of 
the  sixteenth  century. 

1964,  Simone  Martini.  Madonna.  This  is  the  type 
and  attitude  of  the  Madonna  in  Simone  Martini's 
Annunciation  in  the  UflSzi  Gallery  (No.  23).  Both 
the  type  and  the  picture  were  extensively  copied, 
in  whole  and  in  part,  by  pupils  and  followers. 
This  Hermitage  picture  is  probably  the  work  of 
a  pupil  or  assistant. 

1317.  Snyders,  Frans.  Still-Life.  Hung  high  on  the 
wall  of  the  main  Flemish  room  of  this  gallery  are 
a  large  number  of  pictures  by  Snyders  represent- 


STEEN,  JAN  93 

ing  animals  alive  and  dead.  They  are  done  in  his 
usual  manner — a  manner  that  becomes  a  trifle 
wearisome  after  a  time. 

440.     Spanish  School.      Portrait  of  a  Commander.     It 

is  a  hard  and  rather  dark  portrait,  a  figure  stand- 
ing at  full  length,  and  a  partial  following  of  the 
portrait  of  Ferdinand  of  Austria  in  the  Prado, 
Madrid.  The  modelling  is  severe  and  the  paint- 
ing somewhat  rudimentary.  Look,  for  instance, 
at  the  head. 

895.  Steen,  Jan.  Interior  with  Figures.  One  fails  to 
see  just  where  Steen  materialises  in  this  picture. 
It  seems  wholly  different  in  its  drawing  and  han- 
dling from  other  works  put  down  to  Steen — for 
example,  No.  896.  And  it  is  much  inferior  to  No. 
896. 

896.    The  Doctor's  Visit.     Here  is  Steen  almost  at 

*  his  best.  The  drawing  is  excellent  and  the  col- 
our very  beautiful.  Notice  the  skill  in  the  han- 
dling of  the  red  dress,  the  red  curtain  at  the 
back,  or  the  still-life  on  the  table.  How  thor- 
oughly well  drawn  the  figure  of  the  lovely  young 
girl  with  her  head  upon  the  pillow — the  love-sick 
one  that  Steen  painted  more  than  once!  The 
figures  at  the  back  are  merely  accessories.  A  fine 
picture  but  a  little  retouched. 

898.    The  Happy   Drinker.     This   is   a  fairly   good 

Steen  though  dark  in  its  lighting  and  colour.  He 
did  much  better  work,  however,  as  you  may  see 
by  examining  his  other  pictures  in  this  gallery. 

899.    Interior  with  Figures.     It  is  probably  by  Steen 

but  not  a  shining  example  of  his  work.  See  also 
No.  900,  which  is  of  similar  quality. 


94  THE  HERMITAGE 

1844.  Interior  with  Figures.  Doubtless  these  pic- 
tures by  Steen  have  more  fetching  titles  than  are 
here  given  but  the  student  can  distinguish  the 
pictures  better  by  the  numbers.  This  is  a  much 
finer  piece  of  work  than  No.  897,  for  instance,  but 
it  still  does  not  show  Steen  to  advantage.  It  is 
too  glassy  in  surface,  too  superficial  in  handling. 
The  interior  is  carelessly  done.  No.  1788  shows 
the  same  careless  workmanship. 

672.  Teniers  the  Younger,  David.  An  Antwerp 
Shooting  Company,  The  largest  of  several  large 
Teniers  in  this  gallery.  They  are  regarded  as 
"important  examples''  of  the  master,  but  that 
importance  is,  perhaps,  more  historical  or  descrip- 
tive than  pictorial.  Some  of  the  smaller  pictures 
by  Teniers  are  to  be  preferred,  notably  such  a 
work  as  No.  673.     It  is  finer  in  every  way. 

673.   The  Guard.    This  is  an  excellent  Teniers  done 

*  with  great  sureness  and  truth  of  drawing  and  much 
ease  and  grace  of  handling.  How  beautifully  every- 
thing is  brushed  in!  Notice  the  flag,  the  coat,  the 
armour,  and  the  plumes  at  the  left,  or  the  standing 
figure  in  the  centre,  or  the  landscape  at  the  right. 
And  what  beauty  in  the  colour!  How  well  these 
better  examples  of  the  minor  Dutchman  stand  the 
test  of  time  and  intimate  acquaintance!  The 
reason  for  this  is  very  apparent.  The  work  is 
done  in  a  masterful  manner — masterful  for  any 
and  all  times. 

874.    Terborch,  Gerard.    Mandolin  Player.   Howbeau- 

*  tiful  the  figure  of  the  girl  in  the  satin  gown!  The 
man  at  the  left  is  less  interesting.  The  high  lights 
on  the  man's  sleeve  and  shoulder  are  a  little  spotty 
though  the  figure  is  fairly  well  drawn.     How  well 


TERBORCH,  GERARD  95 

the  figures  melt  into  the  atmosphere  of  the  room! 
And  what  a  largeness  there  is  about  these  small 
figures — largeness  of  comprehension  and  vision! 
The  colour  is  excellent.     A  very  good  Terborch. 

870.    The   Glass  of  Lemonade.     Another  beautiful 

*       Terborch  with  the  same  largeness  of  vision  and 

beauty  of  workmanship  that  mark  No.  874.  What 
charming  surfaces  not  only  in  the  satin  and  fur 
but  in  the  man's  hat,  hand,  and  hair!  This  of 
its  kind  is  perfect  handling,  perfect  rendering  of 
textures,  perfect  expression  in  form  and  colour. 
What  well-drawn  figures!  And  what  lovely  col- 
our! The  table  at  the  right  is  a  little  disturbing 
and  fails  to  fill  the  space  well.  The  room  is  cor- 
rectly drawn,  is  true  in  values,  and  is  filled  with 
atmosphere.     An  excellent  picture. 

643  1 Portraits  of  Man  and  Wife.     They  are  very 

644  J  questionable   Terborchs.      The   drawing   (look   at 

the  hands)  and  the  colour  are  not  good  enough  in 
quality  for  Terborch.  The  interior  is  too  bare 
and  airless,  the  curtain  too  flashy  in  high  lights,  the 
lace  work  entirely  too  hard.  The  portraits  are 
not  sufficient  for  Terborch  but  may  answer  for 
some  pupil  or  imitator. 

871.    The  Violin  Player.     This  is  a  good  picture  in 

the  style  of  Terborch,  showing  clever  painting 
and  a  fine  colour  scheme,  but  it  is  possibly  not  by 
Terborch.     It  may  be  accepted  with  reservations. 

872.   The  Letter.     Excellent  in  every  way!     The 

satin  gown  is  not  more  perfect  in  colour  and  tex- 
ture than  the  chair,  the  table-cloth,  the  pictures 
on  the  wall,  or  the  interior  itself  with  its  fine  depth 
of  shadowed  light  and  atmosphere.     And  how  well 


* 


96  THE  HERMITAGE 

everything  is  drawn!  Even  things  not  reahsed 
exactly  are,  nevertheless,  wonderfully  suggested. 
Notice  the  back  of  the  lady's  head,  for  instance, 
with  all  that  is  there  implied.  The  work  of  a 
master  technician  who,  at  his  best,  is,  perhaps, 
the  most  perfect  of  all  the  Little  Dutchmen. 

873.    The    Letter    Reader.     This    sounds    like    the 

voice  of  Jacob  but  the  hands  are  those  of  Esau. 
Which  is  to  say  that  this  picture  has  the  look  of 
Terborch  but  is  possibly  the  work  of  an  imitator. 
The  Terborch  quality  is  lacking  in  the  drawing,  in 
the  colour  of  the  red  table-cloth,  in  the  satin,  in 
the  yellow  bodice,  in  the  grey  wall  at  the  back. 
Nothing  in  it  rings  quite  true. 

317.    Tiepolo,  Giovanni  Battista.     Cleopatra's  Feast. 

*  Done  probably  about  the  time  Tiepolo  was  paint- 
ing the  fresco  in  the  Palazzo  Labbia  at  Venice — 
that  is,  at  the  height  of  his  power.  This  is  an  ex- 
cellent representation  of  the  master,  a  picture  con- 
ceived and  executed  with  great  verve  and  spirit, 
composed  with  proper  balance  and  restfulness,  set 
in  architecture  worthy  of  Paolo  Veronese.  What 
superb  colour!  Even  the  blue  at  the  left,  though 
it  "howls/'  does  so  melodiously.  And  how  freely 
and  yet  surely  it  is  painted !  Everything  is  touched 
lightly  but  rightly.  Even  the  details,  such  as  the 
fruit  in  the  dish,  the  dog  at  the  right,  or  the  verde- 
antique  in  the  floor,  are  infallibly  right  in  their 
doing.  What  a  superb  piece  of  decoration!  Look 
at  it  from  across  the  gallery.  It  is  seldom  that 
one  sees  so  good  a  Tiepolo  on  gallery  walls. 

1671.    The  Liberal  Arts  Presented  to  Augustus.     The 

inevitable  comparison  between  this  picture  and 
the  larger  Cleopatra's  Feast  (No.  317)  results  unfa- 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  97 

vourably  to  this  example,  though  It  is  handsome 
in  colour  and  is  done  with  spirit  and  skill.  It  is 
effective  work.  Notice  the  good  landscape  at  the 
right  with  the  buildings  and  water. 

134.  Tintoretto  (JacopoRobusti).  St.  George.  This 
is  a  school  version  of  the  St.  George  and  the 
Dragon  in  the  National  Gallery,  London  (No.  16), 
to  which  has  been  added  the  foreshortened  figure 
of  the  Slave  in  Tintoretto's  Miracle  of  the  Slave 
in  the  Venice  Academy.  It  has  slight  value  as 
art,  and  no  value  whatever  as  explaining  Tintoretto. 

132.    Birth  of  the  Virgin.     The  figures  are  too  slight, 

the  colour  too  thin,  the  drawing  too  frail  for  Tin- 
toretto. Look  at  the  figure  at  the  right  standing 
in  the  attitude  of  the  chief  figure  in  the  Finding  of 
the  Body  of  St.  Mark  in  the  Brera  (No.  143),  and 
mentally  compare  this  figure  with  that.  The  com- 
parison will  not  confirm  this  Hermitage  picture  as 
a  Tintoretto.  Look  farther  here  at  the  bad  bed, 
the  hard  figure  in  it,  the  snaky  curtains.  Even 
the  drawing  of  the  balustrade  at  the  left  is  wrong, 
and  the  floor  will  not  lie  down  flat.  It  is  a  poor- 
enough  school  piece. 

137.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  A  very  questionable  Tin- 
toretto. Even  the  catalogue  queries  it.  It  may 
have  been  done  by  some  pupil  or  follower  but 
seems  more  like  a  Bassano  school  piece.  Formerly 
it  passed  as  a  Paris  Bordone. 

93.    Titian  (Tiziano  Vecellio).     Madonna  and  Child. 

The  type  of  this  Madonna  is,  perhaps,  more  Gior- 
gionesque  than  Titianesque.  It  belongs  in  the  same 
class  or  at  least  is  near  to  the  Gipsy  Madonna 
at  Vienna  (No.  176),  which  means  that  it  is  also 


5  THE  HERMITAGE 

close  to  the  supposed  Giorgione  Madonna,  at 
Madrid  (No.  288).  These  three  Madonnas  are 
very  much  ahke  and  closely  related,  but  they 
scarcely  reveal  Titian's  mind  or  hand.  They  are 
nearer  Giorgione.  The  right  hand  in  this  Her- 
mitage Madonna  is  very  suggestive  of  Giorgione,  as 
are  also  the  brow,  hair,  and  drapery.  The  Child 
also  has  the  Giorgione  look  and  spirit.  All  three 
of  the  Madonnas  mentioned  agree  fairly  well  with 
the  Castelfranco  Madonna,  but  they  are  not  so 
well  done.  There  is  a  Bellinesque  niche  of  archi- 
tecture back  of  this  Hermitage  picture. 

94.   Ecce  Homo.    It  is  a  much  thumbed  and  grimed 

canvas  that  originally  may  have  been  started  by 
Titian.  There  is  nothing  important  or  even  inter- 
esting about  it  now. 

95.  Salvator  Mundi.  This  picture  may  be  re- 
ferred to  Titian's  last  years  with  some  probability. 
It  is  loosely  and  rather  heavily  painted,  and 
neither  in  drawing  nor  colour  is  in  any  way  re- 
markable. 

96.    Madonna,  Child,  and  Magdalen.     The  Titian- 

esque  hand  in  this  picture  is  not  enough  to  warrant 
its  attribution  to  Titian.  It  is  too  coarse  in  spirit, 
too  odd  in  drawing  for  Titian.  Some  follower,  as- 
sistant, or  copyist  did  it.  There  are  many  replicas 
and  copies  of  it  scattered  through  the  galleries,  as 
the  catalogue  note  intimates.  The  picture  is  much 
injured  by  repainting  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Mag- 
dalen's throat  and  white  scarf  now  turned  brown 
in  tone. 

97.    Christ  Bearing  the  Cross.     This  IS  probably 

a  repetition  of  the  picture  at  Madrid  which  in  turn 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  99 

is  perhaps  Titian  at  second  hand.  None  of  the 
versions  of  this  picture  seems  entirely  by  Titian's 
hand  though  repainting  may  have  quenched  the 
identity  of  that  at  Madrid. 

98.    Repentant   Magdalen.     This    seems    to    have 

*      been  a  popular  picture,  for  there  are  many  versions 

of  it  elsewhere.  There  is  every  reason  to  suppose 
Titian  did  this  example.  It  is  very  much  in  his 
style  in  both  drawing  and  handling.  Even  the  ver- 
sion in  the  Pitti  has  not  the  strength  of  this  later 
Hermitage  example.  It  is  fine  in  bulk  and  body 
as  well  as  in  colour.  And  what  a  good  tree  and 
sky!  It  is,  perhaps,  not  the  most  admirable  Titian 
in  the  world  but  it  is  his. 

99.   Toilet  of  Venus.    Such  pictures  as  this  make 

a  grand  display  and  seem  wonderful  at  the  first 
glance,  but  they  do  not  bear  the  analysis  that  every 
masterwork  should  withstand.  Of  course  it  is  the 
one  and  only  original  and  the  many  versions  of  it 
elsewhere  are  all  copies.  But  a  short  study  of  it 
rather  strengthens  the  impression  that  it,  too,  is 
some  sort  of  a  copy.  The  handling  of  it  is  no  more 
like  Titian's  handling  than  that  of  the  avowed 
copy  in  this  gallery  (No.  108).  Look  at  the  work 
on  the  border  pattern,  or  the  high  lights  on  the 
hair,  or  the  drawing  of  the  eyes  and  brows.  And 
what  a  bad  reflection  in  the  mirror!  Titian  is  un- 
der it  in  a  way,  and  he  may  have  been  clouded 
by  repainting,  but  there  is  nothing  about  it  to- 
day that  is  better  than  a  copy. 

100.    Danae.    There  are  half  a  dozen  versions  of 

this  picture  in  the  European  galleries,  the  best 
ones  being  at  Naples  and  Madrid.  This  Her- 
mitage picture  follows  the  Madrid  example  and  is 


100  THE  HERMITAGE 

probably  one  of  the  worst  of  the  versions.  Look 
at  the  old  woman  at  the  right,  with  her  dreadful 
profile,  and  this  will  give  the  quality  of  the  whole 
work.  If  you  are  not  willing  to  accept  the  draw- 
ing and  handling  of  this  figure  as  final,  then  study 
the  drawing  of  the  face  of  the  Danae  for  a  few 
moments  or  the  dull  imitation  of  Titian  in  the 
distant  mountains.     It  is  only  a  poor  copy. 

101.    Portrait   of  Paul   III.      The    original    of    this 

picture  is  in  the  Naples  Gallery  and  is  one  of  the 
celebrated  and  well-preserved  Titians.  The  Naples 
portrait  is  a  magnificent  example  of  Titian,  the 
prince  of  all  portrait-painters.  But  the  Hermitage 
catalogue  refers  to  it  as  a  "replica,'^  the  intima- 
tion being  plain  that  the  only  original  is  this  Her- 
mitage example.  There  are  many  copies  of  the 
Naples  portrait  and  this  at  St.  Petersburg  is  nei- 
ther better  nor  worse  than  the  others. 

102.    Portrait  of  Cardinal  Pallavacini.     The  Titian 

attribution  comes  from  the  hand  and  robe,  but  the 
picture  is,  perhaps,  nearer  to  Sebastiano  del  Piombo 
following  Raphael.  The  catalogue  queries  it  as  a 
Titian. 

103.  Portrait  of  a  Doge.  It  Is  nowhere  near  Ti- 
tian. It  looks  like  a  poor  copy  of  Tintoretto. 
Look  at  the  flat  cap,  head  and  hand,  or  the  hop- 
skip-and-jump  placing  of  high  lights  on  the  sleeves 
and  robe.  The  picture  has  no  value  and  should 
be  in  the  storeroom. 

105.    Portrait  of  Young  Woman.     The  likeness  here 

to  Titian  is  all  on  the  surface.  The  portrait  has 
not  his  mental  force  or  technical  handling  and  is 
probably  a  school  following  or  latter-day  copy. 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  101 

1678.    St.  Sebastian.     This  is  evidently  a  late  Titian 

*  and  has  the  look  of  a  canvas  started  but  never 
brought  to  completion.  The  underlying  structure 
of  the  body  is  given  in  a  large,  full  way.  The  es- 
sentials of  form  are  made  known,  but  the  details 
are  omitted.  It  is  a  fine  bit  of  colour  in  spite  of 
the  messy  surface  of  the  background.  The  head 
is  that  of  Titian's  Magdalen.  Up  to  1892  this 
picture  was  kept  in  the  storeroom  of  the  gallery, 
while  Guido  Reni  and  Carlo  Dolci  bloomed  along 
the  walls  for  the  admiration  of  the  tourist.  Hap- 
pily the  times  and  the  taste  have  changed. 

733.  Uden,  Lucas  van.  Landscape.  Notice  this  land- 
scape closely  for  its  somewhat  crazy  cattle,  horses, 
and  figures,  its  flashily  painted  foliage,  and  green 
distance.  This  is  the  sort  of  picture  continually 
attributed  to  Rubens  in  the  European  galleries, 
whereas  it  is  by  one  of  his  followers  and  assistants. 
So  far  as  general  effect  goes  it  is  a  rather  good  effort. 
It  is  only  when  you  put  it  on  the  rack  that  it 
winces.  And,  of  course,  it  has  only  a  superficial 
resemblance  to  the  real  landscape  of  Rubens. 

418.   Velasquez,  Diego  de  Silva  y.    Portrait  of  Inno-- 

*  cent  X.  This  is  probably  the  original  sketch, 
made  from  life  by  Velasquez,  for  the  large  portrait 
in  the  Doria  gallery,  Rome.  There  are,  however, 
other  repetitions  of  the  head  elsewhere,  and  each 
has  its  claimants  as  the  original.  But  the  cer- 
tainty of  the  touch,  the  strength  of  the  modelling 
proclaim  this  St.  Petersburg  portrait  to  be  not  only 
an  original  sketch,  but  by  a  master-hand  such  as  Ve- 
lasquez possessed.  It  is  in  his  style — his  manner  of 
handling.  Stand  back  in  the  gallery  and  notice 
the  large  realism  of  it — the  greasy  flesh  of  the  fore- 


102  THE  HERMITAGE 

head,  the  sunken,  fox-Hke  eyes,  the  heavy  brows, 
the  red  nose,  the  flabby  mouth,  the  rather  mahcious 
lip  and  chin.  It  is  all  a  tentative,  a  sketchy  state- 
ment, but  how  superbly  truthful  in  the  large  essen- 
tials !  Look  again  at  the  ear,  how  well  it  is  put  on 
the  head,  how  the  cap  is  dragged  down  over  the 
skull,  how  the  jaw  is  foreshortened  from  the  chin, 
how  the  whole  head  fits  into  the  neck  and  collar. 
The  cape  and  figure  are  merely  suggested.  The 
colour  is  a  little  hot,  but  probably  that  was  true 
to  the  original.  And  the  keen  analysis  of  character 
is  true  to  history.  The  pope  was  the  same  man 
in  fact  that  Velasquez  has  written  him  down  here 
with  the  paint-brush.  He  saw  and  painted  him 
truly  from  without,  and  that  external  appearance 
proved  the  index  of  the  internal  man.  A  superb 
sketch. 

1849.   The  Breakfast.    This,  like  many  another  of  the 

early  Velasquez  pictures,  is  of  questionable  origin. 
It  is,  perhaps,  necessary  to  repeat  that  Ribalta, 
Pacheco,  and  others  did  pictures  of  a  nature  very 
similar  to  this.  A  so-called  Zurbaran  (No.  350)  in 
this  gallery  approximates  it  in  style  without  paral- 
leling or  equalling  it.  The  drawing  in  this  No. 
1849  is  true  enough  but  hard.  Notice  the  still- 
life  on  the  table.  Beruete  thinks  it  genuine  though 
repainted  in  the  heads. 

419  1  Philip  IV  and  the  Count  of  Olivares.     These 

420  [  are  Velasquez  school  pieces  or  copies,  not  too  well 
421 J  done,  and  certainly  not  done  by  Velasquez.     No. 

420  is  a  copy  of  the  portrait  of  Philip  IV  in  the 
National  Gallery,  London. 

422.    Portrait  of  the  Count  of  Olivares.     The  work 

now  seems  rather  hard  and  poor,  though  this  may 


VERONESE,  PAOLO  103 

have  come  from  cleaning-room  injuries.  It  is  pos- 
sibly an  original  work  of  Velasquez,  though  there  is 
nothing  about  it  that  Mazo  or  others  in  the  Velas- 
quez shop  could  not  have  done. 

122.    Venetian  School.    Madonna  and  Child.    It  is 

positively  hard  in  outline  though  bright  in  colour 
and  has  figures,  buildings,  and  landscape  faintly 
reminiscent  of  Giorgione.  It  is  not  far  from  such 
a  Giorgione  follower  as  Cariani,  though  Crowe  and 
Cavalcaselle  thought  it  by  Previtali. 

84.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     With  a  Lottesque  hand 

on  the  parapet.  The  portrait  lacks  stamina,  being 
weak  in  character  and  soft  in  drawing.  It  for- 
merly passed  as  a  Correggio  in  the  good  old  gallery 
days  when  only  the  great  gods  of  art  were  invoked 
and  the  demigods  and  mere  mortals  were  relegated 
to  the  silences. 

138.    Veronese,    Paolo.      Moses  Saved  from   the  Nile. 

This  may  be  only  a  school  piece,  though  it  seems 
good  enough  to  be  by  Paolo  himself.  The  slight- 
ness  of  it  rather  leads  one  to  think  it  of  the  school, 
but  the  sketchy  quality  suggests  Paolo.  What 
very  free  handling!  And  what  very  good  colour! 
Look  at  the  picture  from  the  middle  of  the  room 
and  how  very  decorative  it  is !  Those  in  the  school 
were  not  always  wrong,  nor  the  master  always  right. 
There  are  many  similar  pictures  attributed  to 
Paolo  in  the  different  galleries — notably  at  Madrid 
(No.  502).     See  also  the  companion  piece  (No.  139). 

140.    Repose  in  Egypt.     It  is  a  weak  school  piece 

of  indifferent  drawing  and  colouring.  Look  at  the 
angels'  wings,  or  the  Madonna's  face,  or  the  don- 
key's head  without  a  body,  and  then  ask  yourself 


104  THE  HERMITAGE 

if  a  painter  of  Paolo's  calibre  would  be  likely  to  do 
it.     Nos.  141  and  143  are  of  similar  origin. 

145.    Descent   from    the   Cross,      The   figure   of   the 

*       angel  holding  the  hand  is  very  like  Paolo — more  so 

than  any  other  portion  of  the  picture,  though  it  is 
all  probably  by  his  brush.  The  drawing  is  a  little 
careless,  but  the  painting  is  very  spirited  and  ener- 
getic— too  much  so  for  a  mere  school  piece.  Yet 
it  is  not  precisely  a  characteristic  Paolo  though  a 
very  good  picture. 

146.    Holy  Family  and  St»  Catherine.     It  is  only  a 

school  piece  or  a  copy  and  is  now  hung  too  high 
for  any  one  to  see  it  properly.  Even  the  catalogue 
queries  it. 

147  1  Allegories.    Sketchy  work  that  has  some  qual- 

148  j  ity  of  colour.     They  are  by  some  pupil  or  follower 

of  Paolo — some  one  of  the  rank  of,  say,  Farinato. 
The  catalogue  questions  their  being  by  Paolo. 

149  1  Diana  and  Minerva.      Small  figures  standing 

150  J  in  niches.     They  are  merely  sketches,  or  at  least 

done  in  a  sketchy  manner,  but  how  very  good  they 
are  in  drawing  and  colour!  Notice  the  modelling 
of  Diana's  head  and  leg. 

789.    Verspronck,  Jan  Cornelis.    Portrait  of  a  Man. 

A  very  considerable  portrait  done  with  intuition, 
right  feeling,  good  drawing,  and  easy  handling. 
Ordinarily  it  would  have  been  converted  into  a 
Frans  Hals,  but  perhaps  the  signature  was  too 
prominent  and  forbidding. 

1183.    Vlieger,  Simon  de.     Harbour  with  Shipping.     A 

very  large  De  Vlieger,  lacking  in  quality  and  per- 
haps  more   panoramic   or  historic   than  artistic. 


WOUWERMAN,  PHILIPS  105 

No.  1702  IS  smaller  and  much  better.     It  is  in  one 
of  the  cabinets  devoted  to  the  Little  Dutchmen. 

445.  Weyden,  Roger  van  der.  St.  Luke  Painting  the 
Virgin.  This  is  a  version  of  a  picture  a  copy  of 
which  is  in  the  Munich  Gallery,  another  in  the 
Boston  Museum,  and  two  others  in  private  posses- 
sion. Probably  Roger  inspired  them  all  but  had 
nothing  directly  to  do  with  any  one  of  them. 
Possibly  his  original  has  been  lost  and  only  these 
copies  survive.  This  Hermitage  version,  however, 
is  vastly  better  than  that  at  Munich.  The  distant 
landscape  with  water  is  very  good  as  is  also  the 
general  colour  scheme.  Notice  also  the  fine  robe 
of  St.  Luke  and  the  gold  under-dress  of  the  Ma- 
donna.    Injured  in  the  hands  and  elsewhere. 

447 1  Weyden,  School  of  Roger  van  der.  Trinity  and  a 
448  /  Madonna  and  Child.  These  are  crudely  done  pan- 
els, rather  raw  in  colour,  false  in  high  lights,  and 
hard  in  drawing.  Notice  the  poor  handling  in  the 
fur  across  the  lap  of  the  Madonna  or  the  bad  fore- 
shortening of  the  brass  in  the  corner.  They  have 
some  relation  to  the  work  of  the  Master  of  Flemalle, 
though  just  what  would  be  diflficult  to  express  in 
exact  terms.  In  the  Louvre  work  of  the  same 
nature  and  subject  is  put  down  to  Colin  de  Coter. 

1017  1  Wouwerman,  Philips.     Sand-Dune    Landscapes. 

1045  J  The  wanderer  in  European  galleries  sees  white- 
horse  Wouwermans  ad  infinitum  until  the  very 
name  on  a  picture-frame  becomes  almost  a  weari- 
ness to  the  flesh.  But  occasionally  Wouwerman 
omits  the  white  horse  and  rises  to  a  height.  Here, 
for  instance,  are  two  landscapes  of  superb  decorative 
quality  in  their  silver-greys.  They  are  lovely  in 
colour,  in  light,  in  air,  in  clouded  skies.     They  may 


106  THE  HERMITAGE 

be  a  little  soft  and  wanting  in  Rousseau  strength, 
but  what  decided  charm  they  have! 

1116.  Wynants,  Jan.  Landscape.  A  large  and  very 
characteristic  Wynants — that  is,  characteristic  in 
its  emptiness.  It  lacks  in  quality  and  is  prosaic 
all  through.  Ruisdael  is  dull  enough  at  times  but 
Wynants  usually  goes  beyond  him  in  this  respect. 

348.    Zurbaran,  Francisco  de.    Praying  Childi?).    The 

picture  has  very  good  sentiment  and  rather  naive 
feeling.    Besides,  the  colour  is  excellent. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


2.  Baldovinetti. 

3.  Botticini. 

4.  Cima. 

6.  Bissolo. 

7.  Perugino. 

8.  Botticelli. 

9.  Catena. 

13a.  Leonardo  da  Vinci. 

14.  Cesare  da  Sesto. 

15.  Leonardo  da  Vinci. 
17] 

18  >  Piombo,  S.  del. 

19  J 

22.   Granacci. 
24.   Sarto,  A.  del. 
29.   Piero  di  Cosimo. 
35.   Bugiardini. 

.  ~  >  Raphael. 

58.   Romano,  Giulio. 

n^  >  Garofalo. 

65.   Grandi,  Ercole. 

68.  Francia,  Giacomo. 

69.  Francia,  Fran. 
711 

72  \  Luini. 

73] 

74.   Melzi. 

76.   Lotto. 

81    1 
g2^|Correggio. 


84. 
89. 
90  \ 
92/ 
93- 
105 
107. 
110  \ 
111/ 
112. 
1131 
114/ 
115. 
116] 
117} 
120] 
121. 
122. 
125. 
127. 
1321 
134  [ 
137  J 
138 
140 
145- 
150 
154. 
155. 
165. 
191. 
217. 


Venetian  School. 
Capriolo. 

Bonifazio. 

Titian. 
Bonifazio,  School  of. 
Bordone. 
Giorgione. 
Moretto. 
Lotto. 

Pordenone. 

Schiavone. 
Venetian  School. 
Bronzino. 
Allori,  Alessandro. 

Tintoretto. 


^  Veronese,  P. 

Moroni. 
Farinato. 
Palma  Vecchio. 
Reni,  Guido. 
Caravaggio. 


107 


108 


INDEX 


221 

222 

236. 

257. 

307. 

317. 

318 

319 

320. 

333. 

348. 

367 

371 

372 

373 

379 

401.' 

403. 

411. 

418- 

422 

433. 

435. 

440. 

443 

444 

445. 

446. 

447 

448 

449.   Metsys. 

Cranach  the  Elder, 


Rosa,  Salvatore. 

Feti,  D. 
Sassoferrato. 
Maratta. 
Tiepolo. 

Canaletto. 

Belotto. 
Ribera. 
Zurbaran. 


Murillo. 

Morales. 
Becerra. 
Greco,  II. 

>  Velasquez. 

Escalante. 
Puga,  Ant. 
Spanish  School. 

>  Eyck,  J.  van. 

Weyden,  R.  van  der. 

Goes,  Van  der. 
'  ] 
,  >  Weyden,  R.  van  der. 


Amberger. 


Moro. 


459- 

462 

466. 

468. 

469. 

4701 

471 J 

474. 


Holbein. 
Leyden,  L.  van. 
Cleve,  Juste  van. 

Bruyn. 

Orley,  B.  van. 


Heemskerck. 
Brueghel  the  Elder,  Jan. 


►  Rubens. 


478 

479 

480 

481 

482 

490. 

513. 

635-1 

536 

638 

640 

641 

643 

646 

649 

650 

651 

552 

654 

657 

559 

560 

663 

664 

669 

675.  Dyck,  A.  van. 

676' 

678 

679 

680 

681 

682 

683 

685 

587 

688 

691 

694 

595 


►  Rubens. 


Dyck,  A.  van. 


Rubens. 


INDEX 


109 


Dyck,  Ant.  van. 


Terborch. 


'  Jordaens. 


598.   Backer. 

603   ] 

607-  >  Dyck,  A.  van. 

610   J 

611.   Hanneman. 

615 

616 

617 

619- 

623 

627- 

635 

6431 

644  J 

646.   Rubens. 

650-1 

653    J 

gyo  f  Teniers  the  Younger. 

733.   Uden,  L.  van. 

742.   Mierevelt. 

770-1 

^rjo    (  Hals  the  Elder,  Frans. 

774.   Hals   the   Younger, 

Frans. 
789.   Verspronck. 
791    1 

793-  \  Rembrandt. 
815    J 

816.   Lievens. 
817-1 

829  [Rembrandt. 

830  J 

831.   Cappelle. 

833.  Rembrandt. 

834.  Bol. 

837.   Koninck,  Sol. 

840^ 

841. 


^ .o  [  Rembrandt. 

844.   Flinck. 

846 

847 

848 

850 

851 

854 

855. 

860 

861 

864. 

867. 


^Bol. 

Flinck. 
Hooch,  P.  de. 


Koninck,  Sol. 
Gelder,  A.  de. 

^-^    >  Terborch. 
^^^  ^  Metsu. 


►  Steen 


Dou. 


>  Eeckhout. 


895 

896 

898 

899 

905 

907 

916.    Mieris. 

943.   Hooch,  P.  de. 

947^ 

948 

949 

952, 

962.   Ostade,  I.  van. 
1017^ 
1045 
1051- 1 

;jg_    Potter,  P. 

1057    J 

1116.  Wynants. 

1117.  Neer,  A.  van  der. 


>  Ostade,  A.  van. 


Wouwerman. 


110 


INDEX 


1145. 

1162. 

1183. 

1317. 

14001 

1413/ 

1428. 

1648. 

1655. 

16661 

1667/ 

1671. 

1674. 

1675. 

1678. 

1693. 

1713. 
1721. 
1725. 
1772. 
1777. 


Ruisdael,  J.  van. 
Pynacker. 
Vlieger,  S.  de. 
Snyders. 

Poussin. 

Claude  Lorraine. 
Guard! . 

Girolamo    da   Santa 
Croce. 

Raphael. 

Tiepolo. 

Angelico,  Fra. 

Cima. 

Titian. 

Brueghel  the  Younger, 

Peter. 
Heyden,  J.  van  der. 
Goyen,  J.  van. 
Heerschop. 
Potter. 
Rembrandt. 


JJg}  Rubens. 

1839.  Orley,  B.  van. 

1844.  Steen. 

1846.  Bordone. 

1847.  Guardi. 

1848.  Garofalo. 

1849.  Velasquez. 

1851.  Florentine  School. 

1858.  Rembrandt. 

1916.  Romanino. 

1917.  Kulmbach. 

1918.  Isenbrant. 
1928.  Perugino. 
1939.  Lotto. 

1945.   Girolamo   da   Santa 
Croce. 

1962.  Greco,  II. 

1963.  Angelico,  Fra. 

1964.  Simone  Martini. 

1965.  Cima. 

1967.   Lippi,  Filippino. 

1969.   Maineri. 

N.  N.  Botticelli,  School  of. 


."7 


jiiiili 

3  3125  00102  o9/o 


